Registered: Sep 2000
Location: The Bottom of the Toyem Pole
Posts: 9454

http://slate.msn.com/id/2080583/

Little late for these kinds of facts now. No one ever reads retractions anyway, I suppose.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2001
Location: ........
Posts: 15003

quote:

---

The story behind the forged documents and how they made their way from the United States to U.N. inspectors is important because it suggests the Bush administration is 1) incompetent; 2) stupid; 3) corrupt; or 4) all of the above.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: zanzibar
Posts: 10477

The story that those documents are bogus is pretty old, but the question was where they came from. The FBI was supposedly investigating it, but it was reported at the time that the CIA had come across them, judged them as bogus, and did not include them in their files. The CIA was said to have made that judgement before the documents were waved about as proof and seemed to want to make it clear that they had nothing to do with them and that they never thought they were authentic.

I can't recall where that all came from, but it was in the news a few weeks ago.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2000
Location: The Bottom of the Toyem Pole
Posts: 9454

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030331fa_fact1

The New Yorker has a pretty good article about this situation. It asks the question of how obviously forged documents could have gotten such credence in the intelligence systems of the US and UK. It doesn't answer the question, but does pose a few different options of how and why it may have happened. I found it to be a pretty interesting story, although it did leave wanting more with regard to answers that likely aren't going to be know for 30 years in some old guy's memoir.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2000
Location: Cnafilornia
Posts: 405

Nute,

I've been in living in self imposed exile lately, and this situation is entirely new to me. Thanks for the post.


You know, I could write...I could sit and write for days regarding the political shitstench that's been rising off of this country since Bush slithered his way into the oval office. Fuck, come to think of it I have spent days writing about this nonsense (if you factor in the myraid other questions of integrity that seem to follow our current leaders about). I've spoken, written, circulated literature, I've done everything short of lead a goddamned one man insurrection against The Man, and it hasn't really amounted to anything...and I'm sonofabitchin' perplexed about it.

I mean, Christ...just a few sort years ago half the country was screaming "impeachment" just because Clinton got a little extra-marital head in the oval office. I'd think that a nation that held such immaculate standards of conduct for it's commander in chief might have some equally harsh things to say about a president whose shady business dealings started with his having stolen the election for office, meandered somewhere through huge profit taking off of the Enron debacle (an incident that must claim at least some responsibility for our current economic predicament), and lately wended its way into maligning the nation and its people through the prosecution of a war whose explanation for existence is grounded in plagiarized twelve-year-old term papers and documents forged by the CIA. This man scoffed at the hundreds of thousands of protesters thronging the streets of his nation, citing that "forming policy based upon public opinion would be akin to running a focus group, not a country."

Holy shit! What the fuck is Democracy about if not listening to the voice of the people? (Somebody beat this fucker in the head with an Oxford English Dictionary, please...I'll pay you.) The people heard this statement broadcast across the nation, and they responded with an astounding degree of silence.

So, Bush and his ilk have taken the greatest network of international alliances that the world has ever known and cast them off in favor of a handfull of new alliances with real world powers like fucking Uzbekistan and the Marianas Islands. And...silence yet again.

The travel industry is dead as a motherfucker...not because Osama's been blowing planes out of the sky, but because American flags have become the new fuel of choice for bonfires, barbecues, and general heating needs in almost every nation on the planet and any American who steps off of a plane and into a foreign country knows that he now runs a good chance of having the piss beaten out of him (at the very least) by an angry mob. Is this the reaction one should expect as a citizen of an altruistic, benevolent democracy? I think not. Well, unless the leaders of your nation are transparent, lying, self-serving fuckheads who regard world opinion with absolute beligerance...and, as citizens, you choose to do nothing about it.

I sincerely do not know why this man remains in office. I can't figure it out. Were the Nazis right? Was Hermann Goering right when he said, “Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.” Is that all it takes to galvanize a nation of good-hearted people into senseless fucking warmongers? Is that all it takes to excuse SO MUCH goddamned high-order prevarication and obfuscation by the leaders of a nation whose citizens have claimed, for so very long, to stand against exactly that? Looking around lately, I think it very well may.



redguard@blackvault.com

P.S. DO YOU DETECT BIAS HERE?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2001
Location: ........
Posts: 15003

Bias detected.

One thought that occurred to me the other day when thinking about all the time I've invested in quibbling on silly message boards with what's happening to modern society is that, maybe, just maybe some Texan has sat down at a lunch table and said....

"there are actually a few people who don't agree with this war"

"oh, why?"

Rock on redguard and everyone else on both sides of the fence that actually gives a fuck.

Last edited by skalie on 03-31-2003 at 03:14 PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: zanzibar
Posts: 10477

Here is the article I had read about it, I ran across it again today in the Washington Post. Its from March 13, but since the WP seems to think no news happens in Africa, its still in the current Africa section. From what the article says, the CIA knew the document was fishy when they saw it and did not put it in their files.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2000
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 7504

quote:

---

Originally posted by redguard
This man scoffed at the hundreds of thousands of protesters thronging the streets of his nation, citing that "forming policy based upon public opinion would be akin to running a focus group, not a country."

Holy shit! What the fuck is Democracy about if not listening to the voice of the people?

---

Last edited by CHiPsJr on 03-31-2003 at 09:51 PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35658

quote:

---

Originally posted by CHiPsJr
Public opinion is irrelevant

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35658

quote:

---

Originally posted by CHiPsJr

Those who dislike Bush will have their shot at him in 2006.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2000
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 7504

Smug is correct on both counts--it's 2004, and public opinion isn't TOTALLY irrelevant in the political equation, in that the prospect of reelection will cause politicians to make some decisions with an eye towards the polls. In general, though, I feel that the less attention decisionmakers pay to momentary passions, the better--US opponents of the war have every reason to take this stance, as we are significantly in the minority from a domestic perspective.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2000
Location: The Bottom of the Toyem Pole
Posts: 9454

ChipsJr is right in many respects with regard to the removal of Bush, etc., but Redguard's confusion regarding the silence of the people with regard to the legitimacy of the adminstration is well-founded.

My complaint with the 70/30 issue that ChipsJr pointed out is whether the government is following the 70 or the 70 is following the gov't. The high percentage of people who believe that Saddam was directly involved in 9/11 suggests the latter to me, with worrying implications.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2000
Location: Cnafilornia
Posts: 405

Hi ChipsJr,


Long time no disagree.



You know, I read your retort regarding the opinions expressed in my previous post, and it left me with, perhaps, some insight.

While I have some great degree of respect for random polling, I feel as though your take on the current "popularity" of the invasion of Iraq to possibly be somewhat inexact. Disregarding the possibility that polls can be wildly skewed to favor any opinion depending upon the inclination of the person doing the polling, and utterly glossing over the fact that even tightly controlled elections can be tampered with to produce peculiar results (just ask our fearless leader), even ignoring the obvious reality that in order to form an opinion of any value one must be presented with some degree of TRUTH regarding the facts (term papers and CIA forgeries aside), how does one account for the staggering numbers of demonstrators who literally clogged the streets of Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Washington, and even New York over the last weeks?

What? Did every individual inclined to disagree with the unwarranted invasion of Iraq simply take to the streets, or were there countless more people who, although opposed to this vile prevarication, found it to be somewhat outside of their daily routine to chain themselves together in the middle of a crowded intersection? How many people opposed to this outrage actually took to the streets and demonstrated? Would you call it one in ten? One in fifty? One in a hundred, a thousand, what?

How about the war supporters? How many of them marched? I think I saw a group of forty-five or so individuals in New York last week. What portion of the Greater Enlightened did they represent? Hell, I just finished electronically signing a petition that has already accumulated over one-hundred-twenty-five-thousand signatures since the start of this bullshit. 125k on a single website. One website. Go figure.

But, maybe I'm wrong.

Maybe the whole world is just wrong. They goofed. Oops. Just like always, those gall-derned Americans just know better.

That could be the case, but it would be kind of difficult to press it to the half-million that were kicking up a fuss in Greece. Maybe the ...three-quarters of a million who marched in London would've been more receptive. What? Am I mucking up the numbers a bit? Forgive me. It's awfully difficult to get a proper head-count on a crowd that stretches so goddamned far that you can't see the other side of it.

I'm talking about millions of people around the globe AND inside the borders of our own nation. When in the hell is the last time you can remember so grand a scope of demonstration for anything, ever? Half a million here, hundred K there, three quarters of a mill up in their neck of the woods. What? They're all fucking delusional maniacs?

I'd think, and let me run this by you, that they're probably pissed for a reason. I don't think they're all lefties out to take a shot at the GOP. Maybe they're pissed at the fact that none of the weapons inspectors that were combing the country turned up any evidence to indicate that what the Americans were saying was true. Could be that they're upset at the fact that decisions of the United Nations were utterly disregarded concerning the subject (again, rather funny considering that one of Bush's initial reasons for waging war against Iraq was their rogueish unwillingness to bend to U.N. dictates). Maybe, just maybe, they're steamed that the promised evidence of Iraqi malfeasance turned out to be leftovers from someone's homework assignment and a couple of forged documents whose purported signatories were twelve years out of office? I don't know, but that last one seems to be a real humdinger to me.

So, with the CIA admitting to bending to pressure from the Bush camp to "pad" intelligence reports in order to indicate that some sort of connection between Saddam and AlQaeda exists, with a fistful of forged and hokey documents, with new legislation to legalize assassination ['s fucking murder, son] inside and outside of our country, with you an' George explaining your newfound disdain for public opinion, with as near as I can tell...STILL NO CLEAR REASON WHY THE USA JUST HAS TO INVADE IRAQ, I'm wondering:

Just exactly what in the hell constitutes a high crime, anyway?

Does this vaunted title require someone to first lie about head? Or is it not the lie, so much, as actually getting caught? Has Bush lied since he's been in office? I'd be marvelously interested in hearing your opinion regarding the virtuous veracity of our illustrious captain's words. Or, maybe it only counts if you're in front of a Senate Hearing Committee and you get caught lying. I see. Being sworn in and lying about head is a HIGH CRIME while repeatedly lying about the nature of, and reasons for, an erroneously justified WAR is not. Well, as long as you're not sworn in, right? Oh, I get it now.



Sorry for my foolhardy interjection,
redguard@blackvaut.com



Edited to include:

P.S. Nute, you're spot on about the people's delusion regarding a connection between Saddam and 9/11. It's pretty sad. I guess, from the modern American political perspective at least, knowing what in the hell you're talking about is significantly less important than it used to be. As long as they can convince you to pull the proper handle come poll-time, that is.



P.P.S. I still love you Chips. I do. Mmmmmmuah!

Last edited by redguard on 04-01-2003 at 12:32 PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35658

quote:

---

Originally posted by CHiPsJr
Smug is correct on both counts--it's 2004, and public opinion isn't TOTALLY irrelevant in the political equation, in that the prospect of reelection will cause politicians to make some decisions with an eye towards the polls. In general, though, I feel that the less attention decisionmakers pay to momentary passions, the better--US opponents of the war have every reason to take this stance, as we are significantly in the minority from a domestic perspective.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2001
Location:
Posts: 18147

quote:

---

Originally posted by redguard
started with his having stolen the election for office, meandered somewhere through huge profit taking off of the Enron debacle (an incident that must claim at least some responsibility for our current economic predicament), and lately wended its way into maligning the nation and its people through the prosecution of a war whose explanation for existence is grounded in plagiarized twelve-year-old term papers and documents forged by the CIA.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2000
Location: 51N3, 114W3
Posts: 1071

Disclaimer: I ain't doing this as a personal attack on anyone, so don't take it as one. Okay? It's not targeted at anyone. Really, I love you all. But not in a ghey way.

I'm poking my nose into this because I'm so sick of the "Bush stole the election" whine, I'm ready to fucking vomit. This is arguement against his legitamacy was old before it hit the pavement. And it ain't getting any prettier. Let's look at the history of a few of your presidental elections.

1824: Andrew Jackson won the popular vote and lost the presidency to John Quincy Adams. One major caveat: Four years later Jackson smacked Adams like a bitch to soundly win the presidency.

1876: Rutherford Hayes lost the popular vote and won the Oval Office by a total fuck over--the House voted Colorado into the Union; Colorado's 3 electoral votes cost Samuel Tilden the election. Both the House and Hayes were Democrats. What were the chances?

1888: Grover Cleveland won the popular vote in the course of losing the Electoral College to Benjamin Harrison. But 1892, Cleveland came back to beat Harrison convincingly.

So it's happened before. If there isn't electoral reform, it will happen again, but if presidential history could be taken at face value, Bush isn't likely to have a second term. Get over it, it was three years ago. You can vote him out of office next year. Okay? Now let it go. (I still he's a slimeball though. Ain't nothing nobody can say to change my mind neither.)

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2000
Location: Cnafilornia
Posts: 405

Hey Scat,

I'm warming up my voting arm even as we speak. I really am sorry that I'll have to wait that long to use it, though (and let's hope the mysterious 18,181 foible has been completely sorted out by then).

On the topic of of the GWB's election:

The one difference that seems to stand out in this his case is that the election tally seemed to be going smoothly enough until it came down to Florida. Florida was all fucked up. Florida was also governed by one of his hatchlings...Jeb Bush. Now it may actually come down to being coincidence. Honestly, I don't know. Considering the MAN himself, his penchant for manipulating the truth, his family's penchant for doing same, etc... I don't buy it.

Of course, the results would have probably been a lot clearer had his opponent not been made out of plastic.

And, you're right. It really seems as though there ain't anything anyone can do to change the situation, either. He's in there and he's seemingly running a race with himself to see just exactly how irreversibly he can ruin the nation and its people before he leaves...

And although I've tried for quite some time to be complacent about it, I find that it goes against my nature to do so. There are still a whole lot of countries out there whose citizens don't have the privelege of being able to make a change in their governments when their governments prove to be something monstrously less than promised. I'm not trying to come across as a 200 lb infant here, but the issues surrounding this war make me want to kick and scream until I'm blue in the face. Two things frustrate me, and to be honest, George is more a catalyst than anything else. I'm frustrated that the people of our country seem to take these recurringly ugly situations without protest, and I'm deeply disturbed at the willingness of so many people to wage a WAR on the basis of nonexistent justification.

I suspect that too many people who live in the U.S. are possessed of a sort of "fortress of solitude" mentality regarding themselves and their country. We haven't had to face actual warfare in the continental U.S. for a very long time. These days, war is a pastime. It's something we dress up for and play on Sunday with paint guns. We grab the Nintendo and pound away at pretend war for hours at a time. When we're done, we sit back, grab a beer, and watch a couple hours of Apocalypse Now on DVD. War's cool. That's kind of fucking disturbing to me. I suspect that, had the vast majority of individuals supporting this action ever had the opportunity to feel what it's like to be violated by war; to kneel down in the middle of the street and try vainly to coax your mind into making sense of a red mess on the pavement that used to be someone you loved...well, maybe they'd be a little less willing to wage it against distant lands, at the drop of a hat, without any concrete justification at all.

See, unlike George Doubleyoo, unlike my neighbors Freddy and Salma (and the two hundred million or so just like 'em), I've been to that place. I know exactly what war feels like. I've seen war without a television screen interposed to shield me from the smells, the screams, and the pain. I've spent time on both sides of the gun, and I feel as though this grants me the wisdom to state that you don't go around conjuring these sorts of situations up without a really, really good reason (Oh jeez, what a fucking understatement).

Now, I don't think my previous experiences make me brighter, better, or wiser than anyone of you. They don't accomplish that. But, they do grant me the necessary perspective to understand the gravity of war, and also the necessary perspective to be deeply concerned at the curious detachment of a people so willing to wage it.

Christ. I've got a friend. He and his wife are vegetarians because they "choose to eschew acts of barbarism and cruelty" toward animals. They're both about as pro-war as it's possible to be, galvanized by the television, glued to the inane sanitized babble that pours endlessly and repetitively from the box.

I've run out of wanting to type.

Be well,
redguard@blackvault.com



Edited to include:

P.S. Never in a ghey way, Scatmonkey. Not even for Mug, God bless him.

Last edited by redguard on 04-01-2003 at 10:27 PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2000
Location:
Posts: 7922

You know what people? Hitler liberated Poland. Fuckin' guy even said so in a press conference. Them Poles had a victory parade when we Nazis walked through.

I'd be very careful about supporting anything the American government does for the next little while. Germany could have really used some objectivity back in the day.

And you never know what your "freedom luvin'" government might try while you people are busy watchin CNN.
Patriot ][ anyone? Too many patriots, not a brain in the bunch.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: my mother's bloody womb
Posts: 7148

well said, redguard.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2001
Location:
Posts: 18147

Oh, what's the Nazi rule again?

Well said, redguard. What's this war you were in that you refer to every now and then? Did I miss somethin?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged