Your inadequacy has been thoroughly demonstrated. Suck it up.
That's ok, giant, I know not to expect content or rational logic from you.
The disparate economies of the Middle Eastern oil countries are mainly attributable to autocracies and the huge bureaucratic messes they entail, something mentioned in the article you posted but you failed to address because it kicks your argument in the balls. Iraq isn't becoming an autocracy, it's most likely shaping into some form of a capitalist democracy which would naturally encourage a diversified economy.
Perhaps if Iraq does make motions towards an autocracy like Saudi Arabia you'll have a point, but until then you might be the one who needs to "suck it up" or stop selectively quoting your own sources.
God! Is groverat still at it? Ah, still trying to prove the pointless. But, what can you expect from someone who thinks lieing is exceptable. Geez I didn't even think that about Clinton!
Of course. Do you? But just because politicians lie and I vote for them doesn't mean I endorse lieing ( like you do ). You'll have to do better than that.
groverat: The disparate economies of the Middle Eastern oil countries are mainly attributable to autocracies and the huge bureaucratic messes they entail...
Interesting. Did you miss my last post? Oh, look, you quoted the exact passage a couple posts back, though somehow you neglected to read it.
As for child-like understanding of arabian peninsula, it would probably be better to start with the basics before you try to tackle this heavy stuff. You can start here:
To return to the topic (if only for a moment) remember that boeing that was touted as being used for training terrorists?
Quote:
Another defector, who was identified only as a retired lieutenant general in the Iraqi intelligence service, said that in 2000 he witnessed Arab students being given lessons in hijacking on a Boeing 707 parked at an Iraqi training camp near the town of Salman Pak, south of Baghdad.
In separate interviews with me, however, a former C.I.A. station chief and a former military intelligence analyst said that the camp near Salman Pak had been built not for terrorism training but for counter-terrorism training. In the mid-eighties, Islamic terrorists were routinely hijacking aircraft. In 1986, an Iraqi airliner was seized by pro-Iranian extremists and crashed, after a hand grenade was triggered, killing at least sixty-five people. (At the time, Iran and Iraq were at war, and America favored Iraq.) Iraq then sought assistance from the West, and got what it wanted from Britain?s MI6. The C.I.A. offered similar training in counter-terrorism throughout the Middle East. ?We were helping our allies everywhere we had a liaison,? the former station chief told me. Inspectors recalled seeing the body of an airplane?which appeared to be used for counter-terrorism training?when they visited a biological-weapons facility near Salman Pak in 1991, ten years before September 11th. It is, of course, possible for such a camp to be converted from one purpose to another. The former C.I.A. official noted, however, that terrorists would not practice on airplanes in the open. ?That?s Hollywood rinky-dink stuff,? the former agent said. ?They train in basements. You don?t need a real airplane to practice hijacking. The 9/11 terrorists went to gyms. But to take one back you have to practice on the real thing.?
from the hersh article.
It reminded me of why Americans are so willing to fall for this fantasy stuff put out by the Bush admin.
Tell me, bunge, how does one veto something that's already passed?
The sanctions are analogous to guns. If used properly no one gets hurt. If abused and everyone could die. The U.S. abused the sanctions and as a result many died.
I just wish you would clarify your rhetoric instead of trying to hide behind it. Did people die because of the sanctions or because of how the sanctions were abused, mainly by the U.S. and Britain?
You pretend that those options are the same but they're not.
Of course. Do you? But just because politicians lie and I vote for them doesn't mean I endorse lieing ( like you do ). You'll have to do better than that.
What do you mean by "endorse" and how do I do it?
I say I don't care if they lie as long as the results are good, obviously you feel the same. Your only problem is you can't recognize the hole in your logic and shut up about it.
---
giant:
How then do you reconcile the fact that the problems in the ME related to oil and social welfare states are attributable to autocratic government with the idea that Iraq is apparently earmarked to be a democracy of the capitalist bent? (If you buy into the idea that the US went in to take Iraq's oil, that's what would happen.)
Or do you want to have your cake and eat it, too?
---
bunge:
Quote:
The sanctions are analogous to guns. If used properly no one gets hurt. If abused and everyone could die. The U.S. abused the sanctions and as a result many died.
Please cite any authority to back you up on this. Any at all. Please.
Because every human rights organization and liberal thinker across the world has, for the last decade, decried the sanctions as a "blunt instrument". The only people I can think of who share your point of view are conservative commentators like Rush Limbaugh.
Here's a nice quote you always love to ignore:
An emergency commodity assistance program like oil-for-food, no matter how well funded or well run, cannot reverse the devastating consequences of war and ten years of virtual shutdown of Iraq's economy ... The deterioration in Iraq's civilian infrastructure is so far-reaching that is can only be reversed with extensive investment and development efforts.
- Human Rights Watch (August 4, 2000)
Proving that you don't know what you're talking about is a bit like proving Pauly Shore is a bad actor; but as easy as it is I still think it's great fun.
Quote:
Did people die because of the sanctions or because of how the sanctions were abused, mainly by the U.S. and Britain? You pretend that those options are the same but they're not.
How are they not?
Do you have ANY backing at all for the idea that the sanctions the UN agreed to place on Iraq were inherently harmless? Answer this question.
Proving that you don't know what you're talking about is a bit like proving Pauly Shore is a bad actor; but as easy as it is I still think it's great fun.
You do a good job at proving you're an idiot by ignoring questions that you can't truthfully answer without reversing your positions.
How then do you reconcile the fact that the problems in the ME related to oil and social welfare states are attributable to autocratic government with the idea that Iraq is apparently earmarked to be a democracy of the capitalist bent? (If you buy into the idea that the US went in to take Iraq's oil, that's what would happen.)
This black and white fantasy of yours is just that. Why do you have such resistance to actually studying that which you comment on? You act like democracy is a specific, unvaried thing. You do realize that Iran has a type of democracy, do you not? And you realize that in order for your fantasy of even oil wealth distribution you have to stay pretty far away from privatization, don't you? Rememer how you ridiculed me a few posts ago for bringing up manufacturing?
Let me remind you:
Quote:
Manufacturing?
OIL
How's the manufacturing biz in Qatar lately? How about Kuwait?
I've already pointed out why this is rediculous, and how these countries are supported by a foriegn work force much larger than the actual population of citizens and living at a much lower level. In order for Iraq to function as a representative democracy of some just sort while providing a high standard of living for all Iraqi people, the economy needs a whole lot more than oil.
You do a good job at proving you're an idiot by ignoring questions that you can't truthfully answer without reversing your positions.
What question did I ignore? Please, unlike you I'll be glad to answer any questions you put before me.
Care to answer mine or is your intelligent repartee going to rely solely on calling me an idiot?
Come on, bunge, diversify.
------
giant:
Quote:
This black and white fantasy of yours is just that. Why do you have such resistance to actually studying that which you comment on?
I read your links, what more do you want?
I'm going off what they say now.
Quote:
You act like democracy is a specific, unvaried thing.
No, no I don't.
Sez me:
...it's most likely shaping into some form of a capitalist democracy...
"some form of" = "specific, unvaried"?
Hmmm, indeed!
Quote:
You do realize that Iran has a type of democracy, do you not?
Iran is an autocracy.
A few sheepshow democratic organizations with a controlling autocracy does not a form of democratic government make. The real decisions aren't made in any sort of democratic way, so no dice.
And beside that, which government has the US specifically said Iraq's will not resemble? That's right, Iran's! Tell me, Clouseau, what's the point of bringing Iran up?
Quote:
And you realize that in order for your fantasy of even oil wealth distribution you have to stay pretty far away from privatization, don't you?
Quote:
Rememer how you ridiculed me a few posts ago for bringing up manufacturing?
You brought up manufacturing as evidence that Iraq would remain a weak economy even after sanctions were lifted and cited the drop in manufacturing as evidence.
Manufacturing will not be and never was their main economic drive, oil was and will be. A heavy oil presence does not automatically assume an oil-based social welfare autocracy, don't be silly.
A strong private economy, even if fueled by oil, will grow and be diverse if you set up the right system, and by all accounts that's the direction Iraq is heading.
Quote:
I've already pointed out why this is rediculous, and how these countries are supported by a foriegn work force much larger than the actual population of citizens and living at a much lower level.
My point is that even if Iraq becomes an oil-spigot dictator social welfare oil state the people will have a much better standard of living. And by all accounts not even that is going to happen.
To say this war and the lifting of sanctions will not help the people is just stupid.
Quote:
In order for Iraq to function as a representative democracy of some just sort while providing a high standard of living for all Iraqi people, the economy needs a whole lot more than oil.
Why the hell would they ONLY have oil and what indication do you have that Iraqis are incapable of anything else?
Here's an article about the man the US (that is, the White House and the Pentagon) want to install as Iraq's leader. This guy is a crook....convicted in absentia by a Jordanian court for thieving $Sixty Million. I wonder if he knows Ken Lay?
I say I don't care if they lie as long as the results are good, obviously you feel the same. Your only problem is you can't recognize the hole in your logic and shut up about it.
---
Sounds like an endorsement to me and I think you should follow your own advice.
By the way. How do I obviously feel the same? If you're going site my support of Clinton when he lied ( not his infidelity with Monica ) he did the wrong thing. If he could have run again I wouldn't have voted for him because at that moment he put his own needs above the good of the country. And god look what it lead to. My problem with him was that he lied as president to the people. His private life is just that and another matter entirely. As is Bush. A whole different magnitude of lieing.
If I had been Clinton I would have lied about this too. Its none of anyone elses buisness (well beside his family but thats up to his own conscious).
Clinton didn´t ask to be asked about his sexual escapades so it would be unfair to compare the Starr show with Jerry Springer. When Jerry Springer has his guests in the show they are not forced to do it so they are as much to blame as Springer himself (and whatever network it is on). Clinton wasn´t interviewed by Starr because he wanted but because he had to. Whatever "shame" this has put on the white house reputation is entirely to blame on Starr. Notice that its only in US people feel this is shameful for the US. The rest of the world couldn´t care less. Here Clinton is the president that was good for the economy and tried to reform the healtcare system but failed because of huge economical interests.
If I had been Clinton I would have lied about this too. Its none of anyone elses buisness (well beside his family but thats up to his own conscious).
Clinton didn´t ask to be asked about his sexual escapades so it would be unfair to compare the Starr show with Jerry Springer. When Jerry Springer has his guests in the show they are not forced to do it so they are as much to blame as Springer himself (and whatever network it is on). Clinton wasn´t interviewed by Starr because he wanted but because he had to. Whatever "shame" this has put on the white house reputation is entirely to blame on Starr. Notice that its only in US people feel this is shameful for the US. The rest of the world couldn´t care less. Here Clinton is the president that was good for the economy and tried to reform the healtcare system but failed because of huge economical interests.
Anders,
I think we're mostly together on this one. Maybe Clinton should have said " No Comment ".
"Hunt" for WMDs now being scaled down...probably because the criminal lying scumbags in this administration knew all along they didn't exist, and sold the war on the scare factor.
What's also interesting about the Hersh article is the bits on the Straussians (name any neo-con) and their take on intelligence, notably the ideas of deciet:
Quote:
Strauss?s idea of hidden meaning, Shulsky and Schmitt added, ?alerts one to the possibility that political life may be closely linked to deception. Indeed, it suggests that deception is the norm in political life, and the hope, to say nothing of the expectation, of establishing a politics that can dispense with it is the exception.?
Hersh elaborates on this in the Q&A:
Quote:
Another very interesting figure in your article is the late political philosopher Leo Strauss. What does Strauss have to do with intelligence?
Normally, you would think not much, beyond the fact that a lot of people in this government are Straussians. They include Abram Shulsky and some of the men with whom he works, like Wolfowitz and Stephen Cambone, who is the Under-Secretary of Intelligence. But Shulsky actually co-wrote an article about Strauss and intelligence that did make the connection. Shulsky's article involves Strauss's theory of esoteric writing, in which he notes that great philosophers, hesitant to tell the whole story of what they believed, used concealed messages in their writing. Only the very wise could understand the real truth. This also brings in Plato's concept of the noble lie. This is, of course, a great simplification. But what's interesting in terms of Iraq is Strauss's complaint that, as Shulsky writes, nobody quite understood the extent of deception that exists in the world, or its role in politics. This includes deception by Saddam Hussein, who deceived us about what his real intentions and goals were. But you can also extrapolate from that. This idea may help to explain how the people in Special Plans rationalized whatever concerns they had about the quality of the day-to-day intelligence about Saddam and weapons of mass destruction.
Shulsky is the head of the Office of Special Plans, the group set up by Rumsfeld to dig up anything to create a justification for attack on Iraq and the sole 'intelligence' source providing the ideas leading up to the war.
If you're going site my support of Clinton when he lied ( not his infidelity with Monica ) he did the wrong thing. If he could have run again I wouldn't have voted for him because at that moment he put his own needs above the good of the country.
So you're saying that prior to the 1996 election Clinton didn't lie and was therefore worthy of your vote?
Does lying before he was even elected count? Where he said he experimented "2 or 3 times" in England with weed and then at another time said he never inhaled?
Clinton was a prolific liar, a more capable and skilled liar than any president I have ever had the privelege to witness or study. It was his gift, his forte.
Quote:
My problem with him was that he lied as president to the people. His private life is just that and another matter entirely. As is Bush. A whole different magnitude of lieing.
And Clinton's WMD lies used to explain his bombing the absolute hell out of Iraq in 1998? Or for blowing up a Sudanese aspirin factory?
Or is it more fun to act like Clinton never dropped any bombs?
Comments
Originally posted by groverat
List in order.
Can you believe this guy has the nerve to bark orders? Your inadequacy has been thoroughly demonstrated. Suck it up.
Your inadequacy has been thoroughly demonstrated. Suck it up.
That's ok, giant, I know not to expect content or rational logic from you.
The disparate economies of the Middle Eastern oil countries are mainly attributable to autocracies and the huge bureaucratic messes they entail, something mentioned in the article you posted but you failed to address because it kicks your argument in the balls. Iraq isn't becoming an autocracy, it's most likely shaping into some form of a capitalist democracy which would naturally encourage a diversified economy.
Perhaps if Iraq does make motions towards an autocracy like Saudi Arabia you'll have a point, but until then you might be the one who needs to "suck it up" or stop selectively quoting your own sources.
God! Is groverat still at it? Ah, still trying to prove the pointless. But, what can you expect from someone who thinks lieing is exceptable. Geez I didn't even think that about Clinton!
Do you vote?
Originally posted by groverat
jimmac:
Do you vote?
Of course. Do you? But just because politicians lie and I vote for them doesn't mean I endorse lieing ( like you do ). You'll have to do better than that.
groverat: The disparate economies of the Middle Eastern oil countries are mainly attributable to autocracies and the huge bureaucratic messes they entail...
Interesting. Did you miss my last post? Oh, look, you quoted the exact passage a couple posts back, though somehow you neglected to read it.
As for child-like understanding of arabian peninsula, it would probably be better to start with the basics before you try to tackle this heavy stuff. You can start here:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...la&sa=N&tab=iw
Another defector, who was identified only as a retired lieutenant general in the Iraqi intelligence service, said that in 2000 he witnessed Arab students being given lessons in hijacking on a Boeing 707 parked at an Iraqi training camp near the town of Salman Pak, south of Baghdad.
In separate interviews with me, however, a former C.I.A. station chief and a former military intelligence analyst said that the camp near Salman Pak had been built not for terrorism training but for counter-terrorism training. In the mid-eighties, Islamic terrorists were routinely hijacking aircraft. In 1986, an Iraqi airliner was seized by pro-Iranian extremists and crashed, after a hand grenade was triggered, killing at least sixty-five people. (At the time, Iran and Iraq were at war, and America favored Iraq.) Iraq then sought assistance from the West, and got what it wanted from Britain?s MI6. The C.I.A. offered similar training in counter-terrorism throughout the Middle East. ?We were helping our allies everywhere we had a liaison,? the former station chief told me. Inspectors recalled seeing the body of an airplane?which appeared to be used for counter-terrorism training?when they visited a biological-weapons facility near Salman Pak in 1991, ten years before September 11th. It is, of course, possible for such a camp to be converted from one purpose to another. The former C.I.A. official noted, however, that terrorists would not practice on airplanes in the open. ?That?s Hollywood rinky-dink stuff,? the former agent said. ?They train in basements. You don?t need a real airplane to practice hijacking. The 9/11 terrorists went to gyms. But to take one back you have to practice on the real thing.?
from the hersh article.
It reminded me of why Americans are so willing to fall for this fantasy stuff put out by the Bush admin.
Originally posted by groverat
Tell me, bunge, how does one veto something that's already passed?
The sanctions are analogous to guns. If used properly no one gets hurt. If abused and everyone could die. The U.S. abused the sanctions and as a result many died.
I just wish you would clarify your rhetoric instead of trying to hide behind it. Did people die because of the sanctions or because of how the sanctions were abused, mainly by the U.S. and Britain?
You pretend that those options are the same but they're not.
Of course. Do you? But just because politicians lie and I vote for them doesn't mean I endorse lieing ( like you do ). You'll have to do better than that.
What do you mean by "endorse" and how do I do it?
I say I don't care if they lie as long as the results are good, obviously you feel the same. Your only problem is you can't recognize the hole in your logic and shut up about it.
---
giant:
How then do you reconcile the fact that the problems in the ME related to oil and social welfare states are attributable to autocratic government with the idea that Iraq is apparently earmarked to be a democracy of the capitalist bent? (If you buy into the idea that the US went in to take Iraq's oil, that's what would happen.)
Or do you want to have your cake and eat it, too?
---
bunge:
The sanctions are analogous to guns. If used properly no one gets hurt. If abused and everyone could die. The U.S. abused the sanctions and as a result many died.
Please cite any authority to back you up on this. Any at all. Please.
Because every human rights organization and liberal thinker across the world has, for the last decade, decried the sanctions as a "blunt instrument". The only people I can think of who share your point of view are conservative commentators like Rush Limbaugh.
Here's a nice quote you always love to ignore:
An emergency commodity assistance program like oil-for-food, no matter how well funded or well run, cannot reverse the devastating consequences of war and ten years of virtual shutdown of Iraq's economy ... The deterioration in Iraq's civilian infrastructure is so far-reaching that is can only be reversed with extensive investment and development efforts.
- Human Rights Watch (August 4, 2000)
Proving that you don't know what you're talking about is a bit like proving Pauly Shore is a bad actor; but as easy as it is I still think it's great fun.
Did people die because of the sanctions or because of how the sanctions were abused, mainly by the U.S. and Britain? You pretend that those options are the same but they're not.
How are they not?
Do you have ANY backing at all for the idea that the sanctions the UN agreed to place on Iraq were inherently harmless? Answer this question.
Originally posted by groverat
Proving that you don't know what you're talking about is a bit like proving Pauly Shore is a bad actor; but as easy as it is I still think it's great fun.
You do a good job at proving you're an idiot by ignoring questions that you can't truthfully answer without reversing your positions.
Originally posted by groverat
How then do you reconcile the fact that the problems in the ME related to oil and social welfare states are attributable to autocratic government with the idea that Iraq is apparently earmarked to be a democracy of the capitalist bent? (If you buy into the idea that the US went in to take Iraq's oil, that's what would happen.)
This black and white fantasy of yours is just that. Why do you have such resistance to actually studying that which you comment on? You act like democracy is a specific, unvaried thing. You do realize that Iran has a type of democracy, do you not? And you realize that in order for your fantasy of even oil wealth distribution you have to stay pretty far away from privatization, don't you? Rememer how you ridiculed me a few posts ago for bringing up manufacturing?
Let me remind you:
Manufacturing?
OIL
How's the manufacturing biz in Qatar lately? How about Kuwait?
I've already pointed out why this is rediculous, and how these countries are supported by a foriegn work force much larger than the actual population of citizens and living at a much lower level. In order for Iraq to function as a representative democracy of some just sort while providing a high standard of living for all Iraqi people, the economy needs a whole lot more than oil.
You do a good job at proving you're an idiot by ignoring questions that you can't truthfully answer without reversing your positions.
What question did I ignore? Please, unlike you I'll be glad to answer any questions you put before me.
Care to answer mine or is your intelligent repartee going to rely solely on calling me an idiot?
Come on, bunge, diversify.
------
giant:
This black and white fantasy of yours is just that. Why do you have such resistance to actually studying that which you comment on?
I read your links, what more do you want?
I'm going off what they say now.
You act like democracy is a specific, unvaried thing.
No, no I don't.
Sez me:
...it's most likely shaping into some form of a capitalist democracy...
"some form of" = "specific, unvaried"?
Hmmm, indeed!
You do realize that Iran has a type of democracy, do you not?
Iran is an autocracy.
A few sheepshow democratic organizations with a controlling autocracy does not a form of democratic government make. The real decisions aren't made in any sort of democratic way, so no dice.
And beside that, which government has the US specifically said Iraq's will not resemble? That's right, Iran's! Tell me, Clouseau, what's the point of bringing Iran up?
And you realize that in order for your fantasy of even oil wealth distribution you have to stay pretty far away from privatization, don't you?
Rememer how you ridiculed me a few posts ago for bringing up manufacturing?
You brought up manufacturing as evidence that Iraq would remain a weak economy even after sanctions were lifted and cited the drop in manufacturing as evidence.
Manufacturing will not be and never was their main economic drive, oil was and will be. A heavy oil presence does not automatically assume an oil-based social welfare autocracy, don't be silly.
A strong private economy, even if fueled by oil, will grow and be diverse if you set up the right system, and by all accounts that's the direction Iraq is heading.
I've already pointed out why this is rediculous, and how these countries are supported by a foriegn work force much larger than the actual population of citizens and living at a much lower level.
My point is that even if Iraq becomes an oil-spigot dictator social welfare oil state the people will have a much better standard of living. And by all accounts not even that is going to happen.
To say this war and the lifting of sanctions will not help the people is just stupid.
In order for Iraq to function as a representative democracy of some just sort while providing a high standard of living for all Iraqi people, the economy needs a whole lot more than oil.
Why the hell would they ONLY have oil and what indication do you have that Iraqis are incapable of anything else?
What do you mean by "endorse" and how do I do it?
I say I don't care if they lie as long as the results are good, obviously you feel the same. Your only problem is you can't recognize the hole in your logic and shut up about it.
---
Sounds like an endorsement to me and I think you should follow your own advice.
By the way. How do I obviously feel the same? If you're going site my support of Clinton when he lied ( not his infidelity with Monica ) he did the wrong thing. If he could have run again I wouldn't have voted for him because at that moment he put his own needs above the good of the country. And god look what it lead to. My problem with him was that he lied as president to the people. His private life is just that and another matter entirely. As is Bush. A whole different magnitude of lieing.
Clinton didn´t ask to be asked about his sexual escapades so it would be unfair to compare the Starr show with Jerry Springer. When Jerry Springer has his guests in the show they are not forced to do it so they are as much to blame as Springer himself (and whatever network it is on). Clinton wasn´t interviewed by Starr because he wanted but because he had to. Whatever "shame" this has put on the white house reputation is entirely to blame on Starr. Notice that its only in US people feel this is shameful for the US. The rest of the world couldn´t care less. Here Clinton is the president that was good for the economy and tried to reform the healtcare system but failed because of huge economical interests.
Originally posted by Anders the White
If I had been Clinton I would have lied about this too. Its none of anyone elses buisness (well beside his family but thats up to his own conscious).
Clinton didn´t ask to be asked about his sexual escapades so it would be unfair to compare the Starr show with Jerry Springer. When Jerry Springer has his guests in the show they are not forced to do it so they are as much to blame as Springer himself (and whatever network it is on). Clinton wasn´t interviewed by Starr because he wanted but because he had to. Whatever "shame" this has put on the white house reputation is entirely to blame on Starr. Notice that its only in US people feel this is shameful for the US. The rest of the world couldn´t care less. Here Clinton is the president that was good for the economy and tried to reform the healtcare system but failed because of huge economical interests.
Anders,
I think we're mostly together on this one. Maybe Clinton should have said " No Comment ".
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003May10.html
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...591673364.html
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=405122
One of Bush's greatest allies: the short attention span of Americans.
Strauss?s idea of hidden meaning, Shulsky and Schmitt added, ?alerts one to the possibility that political life may be closely linked to deception. Indeed, it suggests that deception is the norm in political life, and the hope, to say nothing of the expectation, of establishing a politics that can dispense with it is the exception.?
Hersh elaborates on this in the Q&A:
Another very interesting figure in your article is the late political philosopher Leo Strauss. What does Strauss have to do with intelligence?
Normally, you would think not much, beyond the fact that a lot of people in this government are Straussians. They include Abram Shulsky and some of the men with whom he works, like Wolfowitz and Stephen Cambone, who is the Under-Secretary of Intelligence. But Shulsky actually co-wrote an article about Strauss and intelligence that did make the connection. Shulsky's article involves Strauss's theory of esoteric writing, in which he notes that great philosophers, hesitant to tell the whole story of what they believed, used concealed messages in their writing. Only the very wise could understand the real truth. This also brings in Plato's concept of the noble lie. This is, of course, a great simplification. But what's interesting in terms of Iraq is Strauss's complaint that, as Shulsky writes, nobody quite understood the extent of deception that exists in the world, or its role in politics. This includes deception by Saddam Hussein, who deceived us about what his real intentions and goals were. But you can also extrapolate from that. This idea may help to explain how the people in Special Plans rationalized whatever concerns they had about the quality of the day-to-day intelligence about Saddam and weapons of mass destruction.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/cont...n_onlineonly01
Shulsky is the head of the Office of Special Plans, the group set up by Rumsfeld to dig up anything to create a justification for attack on Iraq and the sole 'intelligence' source providing the ideas leading up to the war.
If you're going site my support of Clinton when he lied ( not his infidelity with Monica ) he did the wrong thing. If he could have run again I wouldn't have voted for him because at that moment he put his own needs above the good of the country.
So you're saying that prior to the 1996 election Clinton didn't lie and was therefore worthy of your vote?
Does lying before he was even elected count? Where he said he experimented "2 or 3 times" in England with weed and then at another time said he never inhaled?
Clinton was a prolific liar, a more capable and skilled liar than any president I have ever had the privelege to witness or study. It was his gift, his forte.
My problem with him was that he lied as president to the people. His private life is just that and another matter entirely. As is Bush. A whole different magnitude of lieing.
And Clinton's WMD lies used to explain his bombing the absolute hell out of Iraq in 1998? Or for blowing up a Sudanese aspirin factory?
Or is it more fun to act like Clinton never dropped any bombs?
Originally posted by groverat
Or is it more fun to act like Clinton never dropped any bombs?
It'd all be more fun if you would show some reason why you believe Clinton lied about the bombings.