Welcome To the Darkside Helen Thomas!

[wkmac]

I guess the big problem with that is someone should let him know we were not in Afghanistan and Iraq when they attacked NY. Just a thought.

That may or may not be true depending on what you defined as "being there." Were we there like we are now? Your observation would be correct but "were we not there" as in meaning the US Gov't or US concerns had no bearing or presence in country? A quick look then to make one rethink the "we were not there" idea.

In 2004' the Federation of American Scientist published Intelligence Policy Staff Statement #7 and if you will scroll down to the bottom of page 3, read the section entitled "Using Covert Action in Afghanistan" and notice the date. Now again, it does depend on what one thinks "we were not there" means and considering the situation at the time, maybe these actions were justified. I'll leave that debate for now to another day.

Also American business was engaged in Afghanistan and in this case it was the American Energy industry who let's just face facts, these folks go nowhere around the globe without the US Gov't and the US Military. That aside, the US Energy industry was fully engaged in Afghanistan before 9/11 but again, it depends on how you define "we were not there" if these events mean anything. Oh, and if you think the CIA acts as some impartial party when it comes to foreign business ventures, take a moment to consider this and notice the red highlighted part.

As for Iraq, considering our job in the 1990's of implementing the "no fly zone" mostly to protect the Saudi Royals but then one must also consider that in 1998' the US Gov't with the signing on of both the Congress and Clinton authorized for regime change in Iraq. Now is that nothing more than a nice public statement like some city picks a day and makes it Sports Superstar Day in the name of the great sport's star that lives or grew up there? Or does it mean more?

Consider this from the Congressional Research Service. I guess again it depends on how you define "we were not there" but in both cases and this just brushes the surface, we in fact were there but it may be that our gov't wasn't acting or conducting itself like we think or maybe even like it should have and who's to say in all of this, a situation didn't go to bad and then to worse!

And now we find ourselves where we are!

 

[wkmac]

You make some good points. There may be another angle to what you hit on. A significant reduction in military spending could also result in a significant correction to our economy. Stop buying the war toys and you start a recession.

I think there would be a significant correction as you observed. Several weeks ago in another thread (sorry, can't remember where) I posted an interesting piece about the economic boom going on right now in the defense industry. I'm talking job growth, profits, etc. so again I think your observation is correct. However, this IMO is an unsustainable bubble not unlike the real estate/debt bubble that just imploded on us leaving us now where we are. Like real estate and debt, the American war industry is also maintained via debt and one need look no further than the last 10 years if not more to realize this.

The other option by not using debt would be to increase the level of taxation on both the business and individual levels but then you are back to wealth redistribution by taking economic means from one or many segments of society and transferring them to another. In doing so, you also take away the free market's means of "best use" of asset allocation and now re-direct that allocation to a central planning function which in itself is an action of socialism. Fear is being used as a herding process and driving the mass towards the intended corral that central planning wants to herd the masses into.

Purely on an order of economics, what we are doing is not sustainable in any manner of classical study that hinges on ethics and honesty. The points that JJJ made are true and although I disagree these functions should lay with the State (feel the same about police and defense too), for example in the case of roads, what does happen to economic progress as road and infrastructure breakdown? As they do, more people will lose jobs, less revenue in both public and private sector which means more job loss in the private and lost tax base in the public sector. This means on the public side in order to maintain the "war machine" if you will for economic benefit, you must defer to using debt which in itself is unsustainable.

So on the one hand you stop feeding the war machine and the prosperity picture falls off the wall and on the other hand you continue to feed the war machine and the prosperity picture falls off the wall. But in the latter case, you've not saddled the nation with debt and the nation can re-align it's economic house and get back going again using the hard work and innovative ideas that made America a free and prosperous nation to begin with until we went and started meddling in other people's affairs.

 

[Jones]

Glenn Greenwald's piece[/URL] from Salon this past Friday?

Yes, I read that piece (as usual) and am basically in agreement with him (again as usual).

 

[wkmac]

Bit of an interesting read on the US Economy since the subject is up.

Our leaders mis-read the economy, mis-read the terror threat prior to 9/11, continue to have lapses ie underwear bomber, damage the US Healthcare via central planning policy and now are working to up the ante and yet we look to them to save us?

What would happen to a UPS driver or manager who continued to be so inept at his or her job at UPS? We all know the answer and yet we refuse to hold gov't to those same standards. If gov't were purely voluntary and not protected by a "UNION" we could just fire the bastards and try something else.

Think about it!

 

[wkmac]

Yes, I read that piece (as usual) and am basically in agreement with him (again as usual).

You're so predictible!


I also find Glenn very agreeable too!

 

[av8torntn]

That may or may not be true depending on what you defined as "being there."!

Don't have to define it. The author says Bin Laden defined that.

warned that anti-American attacks will not cease unless the United States ends its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan

 

[island1fox]

The relief effort in Haiti has already been discussed on this thread.
Hugo Chavez and France have critized our brave young military people for being in Haiti ?

Any other Blame America first crowd care to join the chorus ????

 

[wkmac]

Don't have to define it. The author says Bin Laden defined that.

That's fine but in post #57 you expressed "your" opinion with:

I guess the big problem with that is someone should let him know we were not in Afghanistan and Iraq when they attacked NY. Just a thought.

And thus taking into consideration of your opinion and the opinion expressed by Ron Smith via bin Laden if you will, I framed my response in Post #62 with

That may or may not be true depending on what you defined as "being there."

The "you" part taking into consideration of what your thinking was in relation to the opinion you expressed in #57. If you were saying as I pointed out that "we were not there" on scale or even close to what we are now, you are correct. However, I offered to some degree another perspective that maybe frames some of bin Laden's POV as expressed by Ron Smith but doesn't fit the mold that "we" may always think in.

The late Micheal Kreca wrote a piece ironically enough was reposted on LRC yesterday and fits a bit right into this discussion but also fits a framework of "war" that bin Laden may be speaking of. IMO a good bit of the meat and potates he (Micheal) discusses in the first part of the piece is rather known these days as it pertains to the Middle East region in relation to US/USSR/CIA etc. actions and various players in gov't. Once it goes into the JFK thing however, it becomes subjective IMO and just gets to cloudy to prove all that much but I will say this, it does fit a pattern previously laid so who knows. If you care to read it all then fine but my point goes until he starts in the JFK aspect.

Bin Laden and others crossed the line, no arguement and they will have to pay a price for it. No arguement again IMO. But like Helen Thomas and others have asked, what is their motivation? Sorry but the "they hate our freedom" ain't working anymore because an honest look at our gov't can't conclude we live in true freedom anyway and I know we both agree on that point and I'd bet money bin Laden understands this too.

On a comedic note, if bin Laden is fighting to keep out the kind of gov't we have these days........ OK, considering all that's happened maybe rather tastiless and crass but obviously bin Laden doesn't think (at least IMO) on the same ideal of freedom and liberty as we do so there you go. The fact is, the humor sez more about our gov't than bin Laden so again, there you go!

Any criminal action you look for motive in order to prove guilt and it can be a powerful ally to a prosecutor whose looking for a guilty verdict from a jury. In this case the American people are the jury and we offer verdicts come election season but when it comes to this, it doth appear the prosecutor is hiding something and even though Helen Thomas is there just so gov't can appear to be the good Boy Scout and play nice to the little old lady, she at least for once in her career stepped up and asked the question that sadly I don't remember her ever asking during the Bush years. Opps! So much for the purely liberal/democrat media construct!


AV, let's consider this for a moment. Let's say in an alternate world you and I lived in an America where a foreign power was often meddling, not only to harvest economic benefit but we found ourselves the pawn in the middle of 2 powerful foreign forces. In the course of their spy verses spy games, we realized that we were the pawns left to die and left to be economically savaged by these 2 powers but we had neither the means or resources to fight either of these forces on equal footing. If we continued course, all we would get is further economic and political savaging by one side or the other and any future of self determination whatever that may be is long lost. If you and I found ourselves in that situation and we both feel and think as we do today, would we just submit or would we choose another option? It's a question for thought to make a point not one I want you to answer but I think you and I both know what we would do and thus the answer is not needed. I don't ask that quesion to justify past events or even future events but rather to consider what our founding fathers did when faced with similar circumstances and facing similar global superpowers of their day. Let's see, ally with the british to remove the french and then turn eventually on the british too? Ironically with french help. Whose helping the Iranians these days? Whose helping Chavez these days?

Boys will be boys?

Hmmmm!


Island,

Just for the sport of watching you bounce off walls and the fact is you really want someone to say it,

It's America's Fault! All of it!!!!!!!!!!!!

OK, I've got my coffee, feet propped up so start the floor show!

 

[tieguy]

Helen Thomas clears up hat she was trying to say.

Again its an excuse to committ mass murder. Osama bin laden had no problem with the united states's support of Israel when we were supporting him against the Russians. The terrorist want to committ mass murder and make up the excuses as they go. For some reason Helen does not have an exclusive chair with her name plated on it in whatever press room in whatever cave the terrorist hide in.

This does not stop senile old Helen from supporting red herrings and contrived excuses. At one time Helen was an anomoly an innovater of sorts in the news business. She has now relegated herself from innovator to apologist. Perhaps Osama may be kind enough to appoint her his communications minister. Does anyone remember a certain Iraqi communications minister denying the existence of US tanks outside Bagdad? Its a role Helen has become well suited for.

 

[av8torntn]

Sorry but the "they hate our freedom" ain't working anymore because an honest look at our gov't can't conclude we live in true freedom anyway and I know we both agree on that point and I'd bet money bin Laden understands this too.

I do not think that "I" ever said that "they" hate us because we live in complete freedom. "I" have said that "they" have said multiple times that the do hate us because of our freedoms. "They" have stated that they hate us because we have the freedom to not accept Allah as the one true god. "They" have stated that they hate us for our freedom to live outside the restraints of Sharia law. "They" hate us for our religious freedoms according to "them" not me. "I" just believe them when they say it.

About the first article that "I" made a reply to. "I" don't really have anything to do with it. "I" will say that trying to say that "they" hate us because "we" are at war in Afghan and Iraq is quite telling. "They" started out hating us for our freedoms. After a small spanking "they" started saying they hate us because we stand behind they nation of Israel. Now "they" claim the reason for the hate is the war on terrorism. This tell "me" we have a tactical advantage and are seeing success. Just have a little fun with the I,we, they thing.

Helen Thomas nothing more than a bitter old fool in my opinion. I think she never really got over losing her chair during the Bush years. If she really does not know why "they" hate us after all the audio "they" have released she will not be educated by a spokesman from the Obama regime.

 

[island1fox]

That's fine but in post #57 you expressed "your" opinion with:



And thus taking into consideration of your opinion and the opinion expressed by Ron Smith via bin Laden if you will, I framed my response in Post #62 with



The "you" part taking into consideration of what your thinking was in relation to the opinion you expressed in #57. If you were saying as I pointed out that "we were not there" on scale or even close to what we are now, you are correct. However, I offered to some degree another perspective that maybe frames some of bin Laden's POV as expressed by Ron Smith but doesn't fit the mold that "we" may always think in.

The late Micheal Kreca wrote a piece ironically enough was reposted on LRC yesterday and fits a bit right into this discussion but also fits a framework of "war" that bin Laden may be speaking of. IMO a good bit of the meat and potates he (Micheal) discusses in the first part of the piece is rather known these days as it pertains to the Middle East region in relation to US/USSR/CIA etc. actions and various players in gov't. Once it goes into the JFK thing however, it becomes subjective IMO and just gets to cloudy to prove all that much but I will say this, it does fit a pattern previously laid so who knows. If you care to read it all then fine but my point goes until he starts in the JFK aspect.

Bin Laden and others crossed the line, no arguement and they will have to pay a price for it. No arguement again IMO. But like Helen Thomas and others have asked, what is their motivation? Sorry but the "they hate our freedom" ain't working anymore because an honest look at our gov't can't conclude we live in true freedom anyway and I know we both agree on that point and I'd bet money bin Laden understands this too.

On a comedic note, if bin Laden is fighting to keep out the kind of gov't we have these days........ OK, considering all that's happened maybe rather tastiless and crass but obviously bin Laden doesn't think (at least IMO) on the same ideal of freedom and liberty as we do so there you go. The fact is, the humor sez more about our gov't than bin Laden so again, there you go!

Any criminal action you look for motive in order to prove guilt and it can be a powerful ally to a prosecutor whose looking for a guilty verdict from a jury. In this case the American people are the jury and we offer verdicts come election season but when it comes to this, it doth appear the prosecutor is hiding something and even though Helen Thomas is there just so gov't can appear to be the good Boy Scout and play nice to the little old lady, she at least for once in her career stepped up and asked the question that sadly I don't remember her ever asking during the Bush years. Opps! So much for the purely liberal/democrat media construct!


AV, let's consider this for a moment. Let's say in an alternate world you and I lived in an America where a foreign power was often meddling, not only to harvest economic benefit but we found ourselves the pawn in the middle of 2 powerful foreign forces. In the course of their spy verses spy games, we realized that we were the pawns left to die and left to be economically savaged by these 2 powers but we had neither the means or resources to fight either of these forces on equal footing. If we continued course, all we would get is further economic and political savaging by one side or the other and any future of self determination whatever that may be is long lost. If you and I found ourselves in that situation and we both feel and think as we do today, would we just submit or would we choose another option? It's a question for thought to make a point not one I want you to answer but I think you and I both know what we would do and thus the answer is not needed. I don't ask that quesion to justify past events or even future events but rather to consider what our founding fathers did when faced with similar circumstances and facing similar global superpowers of their day. Let's see, ally with the british to remove the french and then turn eventually on the british too? Ironically with french help. Whose helping the Iranians these days? Whose helping Chavez these days?

Boys will be boys?

Hmmmm!


Island,

Just for the sport of watching you bounce off walls and the fact is you really want someone to say it,

It's America's Fault! All of it!!!!!!!!!!!!

OK, I've got my coffee, feet propped up so start the floor show!

Wkmac,

Sorry to disappoint you --no bouncing off the walls for me today---even in your sarcasm --I see threads of truth --if thats what some truly believe ---so be it --say it .
My "Tabula Rasa" does not have me blind to past realities or present weaknesses --but also allows me to clearly see the overwhelming goodness of the land my father legally immigrated to.
I for one can say say I am thankful for sacrafices so many have made for the freedoms that I enjoy and have benefited my entire life from.
I truly believe many Haitians are also thankful that such a powerful nation With President Obama's leadership is doing so much to help so many !!

Yes, I am weak --a little sarcasm on my part --lets hear about Custers last stand again and the evils of Slavery

 

[av8torntn]

Why "they're" at war with "us".



"Raymond Ibraham’s analysis in his invaluable book, the Al Qaeda Reader, best summarizes it. On page xii he explains that radical Islam’s war with America and the west is not finite and limited to political grievances real or imagined but is existential, transcending time and space and deeply rooted in [the Islamic] faith."


"In contrast, when speaking to their constituents -- the Muslim World -- bin Laden and Zawahiri instead use formal Islamic theology and sharia law as levers to enforce Muslim compliance. Those who don’t comply are labeled apostates, who, by sharia, must be killed and will inhabit hell. (See “Reliance of the Traveler,” pp. 595-98 and 848). "


Another view.

 

[av8torntn]

"...fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them..."

Possibly they meant something different? Could it be just a slight misunderstanding? ....... Nah

 

[tieguy]

.
Island,

Just for the sport of watching you bounce off walls and the fact is you really want someone to say it,

It's America's Fault! All of it!!!!!!!!!!!!

OK, I've got my coffee, feet propped up so start the floor show!

Its that kind of thinking that gets your partys candidate 1 percent of the vote in a liberal thinking state like massachusetts. Enough said.

 

[wkmac]

Its that kind of thinking that gets your partys candidate 1 percent of the vote in a liberal thinking state like massachusetts. Enough said.

Gee, you're so right but then being my candidate has never made it into office as you point out (something about attitude being the cause) and so many of your candidate(s) have, at least I can't claim having voted for so many who have over time literally destroyed this country and what was once it's greatest asset, freedom!



AV,

As to being forced to pay for Haiti, someone in Washington was listening but it was only one person.

 

[av8torntn]

AV,

As to being forced to pay for Haiti, someone in Washington was listening but it was only one person.

Hard to believe only one vote went against this.

 

[tieguy]

Gee, you're so right but then being my candidate has never made it into office as you point out (something about attitude being the cause) and so many of your candidate(s) have, at least I can't claim having voted for so many who have over time literally destroyed this country and what was once it's greatest asset, freedom!



AV,

As to being forced to pay for Haiti, someone in Washington was listening but it was only one person.

My team has been a tremendous success in comparison to yours since mine at least gets enough support to get on the playing field. What do you call a libertarian with three votes. One who finally convinced his parents to vote for him.

 

[wkmac]

My team has been a tremendous success in comparison to yours since mine at least gets enough support to get on the playing field. What do you call a libertarian with three votes. One who finally convinced his parents to vote for him.

Again, that may all be true but at least you get truth to principle unlike what you get from your party!


Some Red State Socialism anyone?

 

[tieguy]

Again, that may all be true but at least you get truth to principle unlike what you get from your party!


Some Red State Socialism anyone?

ah yes there is a moral victory in supporting a candidate no one else supports or knows exists. Your candidate can never be criticized for his failures if he never gets elected.

 

[wkmac]

Obama, The War President

by Helen Thomas
2/8/2010