DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> U.S. ends search for WMD in Iraq having found none
Pages:   ...
Showing posts 351 - 367 of 367, (reverse)
AuthorThread
02/22/2005 03:53:29 PM · #351
First, the Senators and Representatives did not vote for war. They voted to give Bush the opportunity to declare war without having to get congressional ok. Many voted for this with the notion that Bush and company were going to give diplomacy a chance.

Futhermore, it may even have been the case that not only was dissent vilified by the Bush administration, but that the senators and congress people that voted for this were downright scared, for their own lives, the lives of their families, their constituencies and for their political careers.

Paul Wellstone, liberal Senator from Minnesota was the Bush administration's fiercest opponent and was loudly outspoken against going to war in Iraq.

****
"Shortly before he died in a mysterious airplane crash 11 days prior to the 2002 elections, Minnesota Sen. Paul Wellstone met with Vice President Dick Cheney, probably the Bush administration's most evil public face..."

"At a meeting full of war veterans in Willmar, Minn., days before his death, Wellstone told attendees that Cheney told him, "If you vote against the war in Iraq, the Bush administration will do whatever is necessary to get you. There will be severe ramifications for you and the state of Minnesota."
From this article.
****

Originally posted by bdobe:


Originally posted by RonB:

5) Therefore, Bush & Co ( including 77 Senators and 296 Representatives, many of them Democrats ) concluded that military force is warranted.


Under the political climate that Bush created ("You're either with us or against us.") dissent was (and still is) vilified.

---------------------------------------

So, RonB, I guess you're going to shill for Bush & Co.'s call for another invasion... I noticed that you did not address that point.


02/22/2005 04:02:15 PM · #352
Yes, the Times reporting, or lack of it, should be questioned because of their full support for going along with the Bush administration's march to war. They even admitted that a number of their stories were false and that they were guilty of poor journalism.

One has to question the Wead story now as to why this has been released at this time. Wead himself has worked as an aide for Bush I and is Bush family friend.

Originally posted by bbower1956:

Originally posted by ericlimon:

I don't know why anyone even bothers arguing anymore with this guy. We all know how he twists everything around to make fiction seem like fact in his own mind.

PS: here's some good reading, short and sweet. read this

But then again, it's from a "liberal" newspaper, and not from a "real" source of news like the drudge report.


Funny how you quote a times article like it is a reliable news source. Yet Ron is twisting the truth. I believe it is the times whose credibilty has been greatly questioned after their writers were caught makingup entire stories.
02/22/2005 04:24:11 PM · #353
Originally posted by Olyuzi:

One has to question the Wead (i.e., Bush's confession to his use of drugs) story now as to why this has been released at this time. Wead himself has worked as an aide for Bush I and is Bush family friend.


Here's the reason why:

The revelation that a conservative Republican plant, "Jeff Gannon" (the male-prostitute that was recently unmasked as posing as a "journalists" -- with, apparently, the blessing from someone in the Administration), had been "working" at Bush's White House for over a year and a half was starting to get a bit of coverage in cable news. So, of course, Bush & Co. are now quickly trying to change the subject from a potentially huge scandal, to a relatively minor one -- after all, it is relatively well known that Bush has indulged in the occasional use of illicit drugs.

Message edited by author 2005-02-22 16:41:15.
02/22/2005 05:22:38 PM · #354
Originally posted by bdobe:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

One has to question the Wead (i.e., Bush's confession to his use of drugs) story now as to why this has been released at this time. Wead himself has worked as an aide for Bush I and is Bush family friend.


Here's the reason why:

The revelation that a conservative Republican plant, "Jeff Gannon" (the male-prostitute that was recently unmasked as posing as a "journalists" -- with, apparently, the blessing from someone in the Administration), had been "working" at Bush's White House for over a year and a half was starting to get a bit of coverage in cable news. So, of course, Bush & Co. are now quickly trying to change the subject from a potentially huge scandal, to a relatively minor one -- after all, it is relatively well known that Bush has indulged in the occasional use of illicit drugs.

Have you been smoking something weird? Or reading the conspiracy theories at Truthout.org again?
The reason, plain and simple, is that Wead is about to publish a book. He provided excepts to the NYTimes so that they could "review" it, and they insisted on "proof" that he had the dope ( pun intended ) on his charges that Bush smoked marijuana. So, he, to bolster his own claims did something liberals cannot do - he provided proof - some tape excerpts - so that they could 1) verify that the voice on the tapes was, indeed, that of Bush, and 2) verify that he ( Bush ) did indeed say what Wead said he said. No big conspiracy there. Just common sense.

And I'm STILL interested to know why liberals just can't seem to ever mention Gannon's name without a reference to his sexual lifestyle - as if that has a bearing on the story. If I were gay, I'd be questioning whether ALL liberals are as hypocritical as those in the media ( and Rant fora ). As for a "scandal", WHAT scandal? What IS the scandal? That a conservative reporter was permitted access to daily press briefings? That shouldn't be scandalous - they let Wolf Blitzer in, didn' they? That Gannon engaged in homosexual acts? THAT shouldn't be scandalous - it is, after all, a "private matter" between "consenting adults" is it not? I just don't get it. But then, I'm not a liberal.
Oh, and for what it's worth, Gannon/Guckert was not "POSING" as a journalist - he WAS a journalist: One whose occupation is the collecting, writing, editing, and presentation of news or news articles in newspapers and magazines and in radio and television broadcasts.
02/23/2005 08:47:24 PM · #355
Quick Poll:

Other than the usual suspects (generally speaking, RonB and myself -- and a couple of other semi-regular posters to this thread), are there other DPC members that read these political rants?

A simple virtual raising of the hand (perhaps a post with, "hi," for example) would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.


02/23/2005 10:06:53 PM · #356
!
02/23/2005 10:23:16 PM · #357
I love this thread. It's the first thing I read when I go online keep it up you guys.
02/23/2005 10:48:24 PM · #358
Thank you both for your participation in this poll...

Now, not to single anybody out, however, from previous threads, I know (broadly speaking) which side of the fence David Ey stands on -- again, I don't mean to single anyone out, just making an observation.

As for Keegbow, it's too bad that you're in Australia, that's not to suggest that your input, if offered, would be less valuable; it's just that (as I see it), ultimately, the intended audience is American: given how much these issues affect us here at home. However, it's great that these rants reach an international audience -- accordingly, please observe that there is an EXTREMELY SERIUOS DIVISION OF OPINIONS (as far as am concern) in my country as to the direction of our nation, our current international policies, many domestic issues, and (clearly) the current administration.

Again, thank you both for raising your hands...

Anyone else out there?
02/23/2005 10:52:47 PM · #359
Ive read most of it. No point in posting though. This has been a pointless merrygoround for the last 10 pages, if not sooner.

I would be more intersted in people reading what I posted in the other rant. Im curious how many of those Nobel Prize winners and world scientists have "political agenda's" "pulling their strings".

But anyways...
02/23/2005 11:20:55 PM · #360
Originally posted by MadMordegon:

Ive read most of it. No point in posting though. This has been a pointless merrygoround for the last 10 pages, if not sooner.



Well said, but some make the pony go faster....heh.
02/23/2005 11:29:25 PM · #361
Thanks for the response MadMordegon...

Just one quick (if long) point...

There's a close to universal consensus (especially in the non-corporate scientific community) on the existence and human causation of global warming. Now, most of the public in the industrialized nations (primarily EU) know and accept this universal consensus. Unfortunately, in our country -- given the lack of serious public discourse in our mainstream-corporate media on this and many other issues -- if one is a firm subscriber of the conservative-Republican plank, there's exactly a zero chance that that person will ever concede that global warming is real and that a century plus of industrialization is the cause. Moreover, it doesn't matter how many Noble prize winning scientists have singed on to any study, documents, etc. -- Mother Teresa (rather, her equivalent in the scientific community) could've signed the study, and it wouldn't make a difference.

So, what's my point? I know that you don't necessarily expect to change anyone's mind... and that that point, perhaps, does not need to be reiterated; that being said, in our nation, global warming is an issue that has been so thoroughly caricatured and dismissed by conservative-Republicans, that I wouldn't even expect a sympathetic or inquiring response from anyone that subscribes to the conservative-Republican plank.
02/24/2005 12:15:43 AM · #362
Well bdobe, you know where I stand on the subject as Iím sure most others here to do.

I guess we are cross posting on this but whatever. As far as the global warming issue; itís just one of a much bigger problem: the destruction of our biosphere, life giver, Earth; and with that, ourselves.

To just focus on global warming is only looking at a fraction of the bigger picture. Regardless of who you are, one must realize that humans on earth, starting mostly in the last 150 years but especially in the last 50, have been pumping pollutants from burning coal and oil, to using pesticides on crops that leak into our drinking water, to pumping our cows and chickens full of antibiotics, hormones and steroids to the point that young people today mature 2-5 years earlier than they did in 1950.

Excusing global warming tends to lead to excusing environmental problems all together. And to use Japans exception from Kyoto as an excuse for the US to not join is just another move in the wrong direction. Are we afraid Japan will pass us in economic power right around the time the earth is so toxic cancer becomes the #1 cause of death?

Fact is, here in America the environment comes second to the economy. That is the policy of our administration and probably will continue to be unless the people push otherwise. All but gone was the environment in the last election, though its never been in more peril.

1st in foremost, that attitude has to change. Without a healthy earth, there is no economy, much less anything else.
02/24/2005 12:45:40 AM · #363
Originally posted by bdobe:

Thank you both for your participation in this poll...

Now, not to single anybody out, however, from previous threads, I know (broadly speaking) which side of the fence David Ey stands on -- again, I don't mean to single anyone out, just making an observation.

As for Keegbow, it's too bad that you're in Australia, that's not to suggest that your input, if offered, would be less valuable; it's just that (as I see it), ultimately, the intended audience is American: given how much these issues affect us here at home. However, it's great that these rants reach an international audience -- accordingly, please observe that there is an EXTREMELY SERIUOS DIVISION OF OPINIONS (as far as am concern) in my country as to the direction of our nation, our current international policies, many domestic issues, and (clearly) the current administration.

Again, thank you both for raising your hands...

Anyone else out there?


This whole affair is not just American it affects the world. This is what amazes me with Americans you cocoon yourself in your own media hype and disregard what is going on in the rest of the world or have little regard to other cultures and their views.
ďHelloĒ what you are debating is about a war in another country, which has divided the world this is not just about your President and or your major political parties.

Regards
Tim
02/24/2005 12:50:34 AM · #364
Originally posted by MadMordegon:

Well bdobe, you know where I stand on the subject as Iím sure most others here to do.

I guess we are cross posting on this but whatever. As far as the global warming issue; itís just one of a much bigger problem: the destruction of our biosphere, life giver, Earth; and with that, ourselves.

To just focus on global warming is only looking at a fraction of the bigger picture. Regardless of who you are, one must realize that humans on earth, starting mostly in the last 150 years but especially in the last 50, have been pumping pollutants from burning coal and oil, to using pesticides on crops that leak into our drinking water, to pumping our cows and chickens full of antibiotics, hormones and steroids to the point that young people today mature 2-5 years earlier than they did in 1950.

Excusing global warming tends to lead to excusing environmental problems all together. And to use Japans exception from Kyoto as an excuse for the US to not join is just another move in the wrong direction. Are we afraid Japan will pass us in economic power right around the time the earth is so toxic cancer becomes the #1 cause of death?

Fact is, here in America the environment comes second to the economy. That is the policy of our administration and probably will continue to be unless the people push otherwise. All but gone was the environment in the last election, though its never been in more peril.

1st in foremost, that attitude has to change. Without a healthy earth, there is no economy, much less anything else.


Japan is exempt too (how ironic; home field advantage?). I didn't even know that (you learn something new every day). Of course I doubt if Japan pumps nearly as much poison and filth into the air as fellow exemptees China, India, and Brazil. Now I know people delight in referring to the United States as the world's biggest polluter (if China and/or India have not yet passed us up yet). I don't know the exact rankings of China, India, and Brazil, but I do know they are in the top 10. Now I have asked this question before and never gotten an answer, so I will ask again. Just how is the Kyoto treaty supposed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions when 3 of the top 10 polluting nations are totally exempt from ANY emission limits whatsoever? It in reality is nothing but a feel-good guilt-assuaging socialistic wealth-transfer which offers no help whatsoever in alleviating the problems it purports to address.

Message edited by author 2005-02-24 19:48:23.
02/24/2005 01:12:01 AM · #365
Keegbow,

Absolutely... I agree with your point... and thanks for addressing it. Because I agree that this is a global issue, and the biggest challenge of the 21st century (the military hegemony by a single nation), is why I included the following in my original post:

Originally posted by bdobe:

[I]t's great that these rants reach an international audience -- accordingly, please observe that there is an EXTREMELY SERIUOS DIVISION OF OPINIONS (as far as am concern) in my country as to the direction of our nation, our current international policies, many domestic issues, and (clearly) the current administration.


Note that I also wrote:

Originally posted by bdobe:

...not to suggest that your input, if offered, would be less valuable;


Clearly I should've been far more explicit, and encouraged those in other countries to offer their valuable input. My point, however, was merely that there's a serious debate raging here at home, and that there are some extremely serious ideological divisions in my country. Moreover, the ultimate resolution to the issues being debated at home (and there are many, from the proper deployment of our military to civil rights to the role of the Christian church in our public life), which clearly affect the global community, are issues that are going to be resolved by Americans -- it's our responsibility and, for practical reasons, our decision to make. Now, my closing line only sought to encourage American readers to "raise their hands" and participate in the poll; I didn't mean to discourage or dismiss your input.

Make no mistake about it: As a Liberal, I recognize that I belong to the American family and to the international community as well; so, please, offer your input and your perspective -- I'd love to read what you have to say on the matter.

Message edited by author 2005-02-24 01:54:07.
03/21/2005 12:01:10 PM · #366
It appears there was indeed a plan for appropriating Iraq's oil fields/industy by the Bush administration prior to the March 19, 2003 beginning of the war. In fact, as reported by Greg Palast, BBC and Harper's Magazine, there were two plans by two opposing factions within the Bush administration. The neocons and Pentagon, led by Paul Wolfowitz, wanted to break the Opec Cartel by privatizing the Iraqi oil industry and greatly increasing production of oil to bring prices down. The second plan by the state dept along with the US oil companies was for a simple overthrow of the Sadaam Hussein and keeping the Bath Party in power. They opposed the selling off of Iraq's oil and instead backed a plan for maintaining an Iraqi, state owned industry so as to keep prices of crude high and because the oil companies feared they would be barred from bidding for the oil fields, as they were in Russia after the Soviet collapse. This second plan was put together under the guidance of the James Baker Institute, who provides council for Exxon-Mobil and the Saudi government.

The first plan of the neocons was the plan chosen by the administration but is being blamed for all of the attacks of the oil fields and pipelines by the insurgents in Iraq. As a result, it now appears that the oil companies are going to be getting their way and Paul Wolfowitz will be taking a demotion to head the World Bank, according to Palast.
03/21/2005 12:02:52 PM · #367
sorry, here's a link to the story I posted above:
Story.
Pages:   ...
Current Server Time: 09/17/2021 12:18:42 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2021 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 09/17/2021 12:18:42 PM EDT.