PDA

View Full Version : Andrew Card confirms coverup


01-27-2002, 05:18 PM
On meet the press, Andy Card confirmed that the Bush Administration will fight in court to defend the information that Cheney is hiding. These guys will wind up making Richard Nixon look honest.

01-27-2002, 05:33 PM
I bet the list Cheney is protecting has only one name on it: Kenneth Ley.

01-27-2002, 09:35 PM
I think Nixon was more or less honest enough for a President. OK, perhaps a little less:-)... but really not all that bad on the scale of honesty if we throw other world leaders into the mix.


If we have too honest a President, we may end up with have another Carter, and tough foreign negotiators, and hostage-takers, may walk all over us.


I'd rather have Nixon than Carter dealing with al Qaeda, and I'd rather have Bush than Gore for the same purpose, too.


A bit of internal dishonesty or corruption means little compared to getting nuked by a bunch of zealots.

01-27-2002, 09:44 PM

01-27-2002, 10:09 PM
Seems like you're equating honesty with incompetence and dishonesty with competence based on a few examples.


Nixon was more than just a "bit" dishonest or "corrupt." He was a pathological liar, a parnoid, anti-semitic, racist crook, a war criminal of the first order, certainly the most dangerous zealot of his time, the person most capable of nuking someone. He threatened to do so, made it part of his persona, "Mad" Nixon.


Certainly one can be tough and competent, as well as honest; and one can be weak and incompetent, and also dishonest. I don't think we have anything to fear from a president that is "too honest." What was Lincoln's nickname?

01-27-2002, 10:24 PM
Nice to see that you don't believe in the Constitution of The United States. i always thought you were a fascist.

01-28-2002, 12:00 AM
I will not say that I agree with "M", but it's nice to see a die-hard 'by-the-book' person like yourself. Man, I bet that you wish African Americans still only got 3/5 of a vote, don't you?


Speaking of which, what is it with women getting to vote thing? It wasn't in the original constitution, and it is so wonderful, that it certainly is faultless and should not be changed.


Now, even if I (or anybody) else says that they disagree with some aspect of the constitution, why does that make them a fascist? I musta missed that in civics.


By all means, Michael, attack people who have different views than you. Highjack airplanes, if necessary.


Worm

01-28-2002, 12:42 AM
Andy: I'm not trying to say that the qualities are completely mutually exclusive. I'm just saying that it's very hard indeed to find a leader who is both effective and totally honest, especially since dealing with certain international forces may require some underhanded bargaining of sorts or dirty deeds at times.


Given a likely choice, I would opt for the effective leader who is a bit dishonest rather than the ineffective one who is totally honest, especially in today's dangerous world.


Yes, Abe Lincoln came to my mind too, but I don't think we're likely to find another Honest Abe anytime soon, even under a different moniker.

01-28-2002, 12:48 AM
I'm just trying to be realistic in a dangerous and corrupt world. If you want to call that Fascist, be my guest, but I am not a Fascist. On the other hand, I could make a strong argument that terrorists are actually a type of Fascists.

01-28-2002, 12:53 AM
Nixon may have been paranoid, but that doesn't mean the Red Communists weren't out to get the USA. If they had succeeded, Canada would have been a sitting duck and you would have grown up saluting statues of Lenin. Does that sound crazy? Only because the Red Communists failed.

01-28-2002, 03:16 AM
"it's very hard indeed to find a leader who is both effective and totally honest"


I would say it's very hard to find one who is either one of those things! All government officials are liars and nothing they say should be believed (I.F. Stone).

01-28-2002, 03:27 AM
No one (at least I don't think anyone) doubts the basic badness of the Soviets and their system. But no one should doubt, either, that they felt we were out to get them. Nor should anyone doubt the horrors caused by the United States blaming everything that we didn't like in the world on the Soviets. There was plenty to blame them for without lying about it. The garrison state in Guatemala, the Hollywood blacklist and other aspects of McCarthyism, and millions of dead in southeast Asia (to name 3 things) should not have happened. We caused those things, not the Soviets.


They were a brutal bunch, Lenin, Stalin and their cronies and successors. But we also behaved brutally. I believe you are saying that the ends justified the means. But some of the ends were reprehensible and were intended to be reprehensible. We became far too much like our enemy, something that was predicted by many observors at the start of the Cold War (Walter Lippman and George Kennan, to name two who were not on the left).

01-28-2002, 06:35 AM

01-28-2002, 01:27 PM
Chris Alger believes that the USA and Israel are the terrorists.The radical Islamists are freedom fighters according to Mr.Alger.

01-28-2002, 03:53 PM
Well that is preposterous, IMO.


Here is something I heard recently. A man told me that the difference between terrorists and revolutionaries is that the revolutionaries won. If they had lost they would be terrorists. I don't buy that and here's why: Terrorists deliberately target civilians, and they consider civilians equally legitimate targets. Freedom Fighters know that their battle is not equally with civilians, babies, women and children of the enemy. Freedom fighters strive to avoid ccivilian collateral damage whenever possible; terrorists seek to harm and kill innocent civilians.


Revolutionaries/Freedom Fighters don't murder Olympic athletes; Terrorists do.


Revolutionaries/Freedom Fighters don't send suicide bombers to a girl's bas mitzvah party; Terrorists do.


Revolutionaries/Freedom Fighters don't set off bombs in a disco where the purpose is simply to kill as many innocent civilians on the premises as possible; Terrorists do.


Our founding fathers were Revolutionaries and Freedom Fighters, not Terrorists. They did not attack and kill the families of the Tories, those colonists who supported the King. In fact they pretty much didn't even attack the Tories themselves, choosing instead to attack their real enemy, the British Army. If they had stooped to such levels they would indeed have been terrorists. But they had some scruples. They had some brains, too. Today's terrorists either have no scruples or cannot see the plain logical distinction between deliberately targeting pure civilians and targeting miltary/political figures. Terrorism is sick and those who subscibe to its philosophy are truly deluded. Unfortunately, they are not only deluded but also extremely dangerous. Don't forget that months before the 9/11 tragedies galvanized our nation and the world, I posted that the Free World ought to unite and hunt down and capture dead or alive the world's worst terrorists. It is sad that it took such a tragedy to spur awakening and action against the great peril we all face today. Yet it could have been worse...al Qaeda could have waited until they had some nuclear weapons or 'dirty bombs' and caught us sleeping then. As it is, we will recover from the tragedies of 9/11, and al Qaeda might have blown their chance to inflict irreparable harm on us. Hopefully they will be thoroughly rooted out, imprisoned and killed around the world--sadly, there is no rehabilitation possible for such deadly, aggressive, deluded fanatics. If they were just deleded fanatics I would say spare them. But these NUTCASES want to kill each and every one of us. I think we and the world are probably doing as much as can be expected at this point to combat terrorism, but public opinion is still getting in the way. I believe the overseas al Qaeda should, when captured, be sped to their meeting with Allah which they so look forward to anyway. I don't believe there is such a thing as a truly safe way to deal with terrorists...these nuts will be trying to kill us and destroy the Western world as long as they live.


The next step is to try to deal with some of the root causes of terrorism, and that's a massive problem in itself, worthy of a much longer essay, or even a book, and unfortunately I don't have all the answers.

01-28-2002, 05:43 PM
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Remember that Ronald Reagan called the contras the moral equivalents of the Founding Fathers, that he found Nicaragua to be a "totalitarian dungeon." Ms. Kirkpatrick managed to see a difference between murders she liked (whom she designated "authoritarians") and those she didn't like ("totalitarians"). And the Communists always liked calling themslves "People's" Republics or the "Democratic Republic of . . "


I'm not saying it's not possible to determine who is telling the truth and who is not, who is good and who is bad, but terrorists will always call themselves freedom fighters and politicians who don't like them will often call freedom fighters terrorists.


The terms are, unfortunately, defined by politicians and politicians have little regard for truth or, all too frequently, the lives of their own citizens. Even those governments that treat their own citizens well frequently have little regard for how the treat the citizens of other countries, especially if their skin color happens to be a different shade than their own.


I'm wary of great crusades for freedom or democracy because too often they turn out to be crusades for "freedom" or "democracy."

01-28-2002, 06:16 PM
In 1982 Israel, along with the Christian Lebanese Phalangist Militia, hatched a plan to kill nearly every man, woman and child in the Sabra and Chatilia Palestinian Refuge camps. The killings were carried out by the Phalangists with ample knowledge, assistance and help in cover-up provided by the Israeli's, especially then-Defense Minister, now Israeli President Sharon. This massacre is very well documented. A search on any search engine will give you many, many links to information. I have included one link.


Here is one paragraph from Thomas L. Friedman's book "From Beirut to Jerusalem": "No one knows exactly how many people were killed in the 3 day massacre, and how many were trucked off and killed elsewhere. ...Red Cross staff buried 210 bodies 140 men, 38 women and 32 children--in a mass grave 3 days after the massacre. Since most victims were buried by relatives much earlier [quick burial is Muslim custom, KJS] Red Cross officials told me they estimated the total death toll was between 800 and 1000."


This killing of innocent people makes Israel a party to terrorism, according to your definition. Include me with Chris Alger and those that believe that the state of Israel acts outside the bounds of international law and morality when it comes to the murder of innocent people. To call them a terrorist state is not preposterous, IMO.


KJS

01-28-2002, 10:48 PM
The ANC killed civilians in South Africa in order to rid thier country of racism.


The USA has killed many civilians in Afghanistan in chasing out the Taliban and al Qaeda.


One mans freedom fighter is certainly another mans terrorist.

01-28-2002, 11:21 PM
Fine. You are a traitor and terrorist sympathizer. I believe that that the government will include you in investigating national security threats to the USA.

01-28-2002, 11:38 PM
Can't you see the difference between preferring to avoid collateral damage, and deliberately trying to inflict it???


The difference between terrorists and revolutionaries IS NOT merely a choice of terms. THINK!!!


I won't be surprised if thehawk doesn't see any difference. But Andy, if you fail this fairly simple analogy test, I WILL be dumbfounded.

01-28-2002, 11:54 PM
Interesting link. First I've heard of that. Worthy of concern and further investigation, certainly. Even the article of the link does not claim that it is entirely conclusive, however.


I still think there is a difference, even if that linked article later proves to be completely true: Israel does not send out suicide bombers every two weeks to take innocent lives. The terrorist organizations do just that. Israel does act outside the bounds of international law in self-defense--and they HAVE to, they've been under nearly unrelenting attack for decades. If the terrorists actually would STOP attacking, I don't think Israel would feel forced to continue. Let's remember who the aggressors are in this scenario. Further, let's have the U.N., rather than censoring Israel, call for Jordan to return the land they stole from the Palestinian state. If their Arab neighbors would return their stolen land and Israel would let the Palestinians actually own most of the settlement areas, they'd have a homeland, wouldn't they?

01-29-2002, 01:01 AM
"Can't you see the difference between preferring to avoid collateral damage, and deliberately trying to inflict it???"


Yes, I can. Where did what I said imply that I didn't?


"The difference between terrorists and revolutionaries IS NOT merely a choice of terms."


No doubt. But my point is that it IS for the people who are making the decisions. People's lives were made worse because, for example, John Foster Dulles decided that Arbenz (in Guatemala in 1954) was a terrorist. He was not. Dulles chose to deliberately lie to the American people. People's live were made worse because, for example, Henry Kissinger decided that Allende was a terrorist. He was not. Kissinger chose to deliberately lie to the American people. People's lives were made worse because, for example, Ronald Reagan decided that the Contras were not terrorists. They were. Reagan chose to deliberately lie to the American people.


The communists and the terrorists don't have a monopoly on faulty reasoning, inadequate knowledge, and lying. There are plenty of examples of our country crusading for "freedom" and "democracy" when only an Orwellian definition of those words fit the actual situation. So policy was justified because of the choice of terms.


As I think you know, I support the current war effort 100% because we were attacked by terrorists.

01-29-2002, 02:14 AM
If that is true than we are closer to fascism than I have previously imagined.


KJS

01-29-2002, 02:37 AM
Andy,


The reason I assumed that is because: your post said little or nothing in the way of agreeing with my differentiation between freedom fighters and terrorists; instead you made and elaborated on the point that one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. It was easy to assume that this was the essence of your argument and the essence of your response to my differentiation between terrorists and freedom fighters--if you had given any hint otherwise, I would probably not have misunderstood your view.


You were making a related point rather than first responding directly to the point I made. That's fine. However, since the first sentence in your post could easily be taken as an argument against my point, that's how and why I took your post to represent a contradictory argument, especially since nothing else in your post more fully addressed the point I had made.


I think this is the second time (to our knowledge) that we seem to have had slight misunderstandings due to lack of precise communication or interpretation on either of our parts. Whatever the case may be, I do know that you support the fight against those who attacked us.


I agree that the communists and terrorists don't havve a monopoly on deceit or on fitting terms to their desired purposes. However I do think that the communists and terrorists tend to do it more often, and that their purposes are more nefarious, generally speaking.


I also don't quite see why so many on this forum seem to bring up our own faults so quickly when we are discusdsing issues of SURVIVAL, or the survival of others, in the face of true tyrrany or authoritarianism. Granted we aren't perfect, and we have sometimes allied with demons when fighting Devils. But I get the sense that some of those who are quick to point out our own faults don't have a clear picture of just how truly horrible Terrorism, Red Communism, or Nazism are/were. In other words "bad" ain't nearly as bad as "horrible."

01-29-2002, 02:36 PM
"since the first sentence in your post could easily be taken as an argument against my point, that's how and why I took your post to represent a contradictory argument, especially since nothing else in your post more fully addressed the point I had made."


Fair enough.


"I also don't quite see why so many on this forum seem to bring up our own faults so quickly"


I can't speak for others, but for me, it's a question of balance, fairness and control. Balance because our leaders tell us, always, that we are good and have only people's best interests at heart and the other side is bad and has only nefarious aims at heart. This is not always true, as the examples I brought up in my previous post attest. Fairness because our leaders, like all government officials, lie about what they're doing and why they're doing it. It's generally known what bastards the Soviet were, or Bin Laden is. The bastardy things we have done are not as well known. Control because I am much more disappointed when my own country acts badly than when another one does and we can control these things more easily than we can other governments.


Those who call critics the "blame American first" crowd miss the point completely. No one (or vitually no one, I would think) denies that the world is a dangerous place and that some battles are worth fighting. This is why Bush has such a high approval rating. But when I see us pursuing injustice, I say so.

01-29-2002, 02:40 PM
I'm glad you changed the thread title here. I think name calling, especially with an emotion laden word like fascist, is immature and counterproductive. We have differing viewpoints on some things, but I enjoy 2+2 because those differing viewpoints, be they about raising with a flush draw, or fighting a war, are discussed and criticized on their merits. Name calling diminished the discussion, IMO.

01-29-2002, 03:52 PM
I agree with these points you make, Andy.


What I take exception to are attempts by others to portray the US as equivalently evil to the world's worst examples of tyrrany and brutality. In other words the argument "Well we are bad too" doesn't wash, if others are indeed much worse. I believe Ray Springfield and Chris Alger have both used this tactic on occasion. It irritates me when people use this tactic because it is an attempt to misdirect attention and efforts, and because it presents a false assessment of what is really going on. As an example, yes of course the US had some bad allies and did some bad things in the Cold War. It's just that the Soviets actually did much worse, even in their own country to their own citizens, and it would have probably been an unparalled human tragedy if they had succeeded in their designs to take over the world. So I'm agreeing with your points, but I can't stand it when people obfuscate the issues or claim that we were as bad as the Soviets, or that what we did recently in Afghanistan is as bad as what the terrorists did on 9/11. It's just pure bullshit and it infuriates me that people will spread falsehoods like this, or attempt to use fallacious reasoning to bolster unfounded positions on these matters.

01-30-2002, 12:46 AM
do you agree/disagree that there exist/existed torture squads in cental/south amercia?


do you agree that US intelligence agencies helped train them?


brad

01-30-2002, 12:55 AM
nice argument - israel kills woman and children because they have to (self defense) - bravo!

01-30-2002, 12:57 AM
i think sharon is being indicted by the world court in belgium for this.


http://www.dawn.com/2002/01/28/int10.htm

01-30-2002, 11:15 AM
I think there were, but I don't know if the US helped train them or not.


My point is that INTERNAL torture in the former USSR and Red China, and mass murders of THEIR OWN citizens, imprisonment of political prisoners in Siberia where 1/3 of them died due to hardships are were even worse, Mao's ENGINEERED FAMINE which was the world's worst and deadliest famine in history, and of course all the atrocities the Nazis committed, are FAR WORSE. That's what I am saying...yes, the US has done some bad things, even some very bad things, but the Soviets, Red Chinese, and Nazis were simply FAR worse and did FAR more horrible things on a MASSIVE scale.


If you are pointing out something bad the US may have been involved in, OK...but if you are using it as an example of how we were as bad as them, you're simply wrong...far wrong. They were undeniably many times worse than us.

01-30-2002, 11:22 AM
That's not my argument and that's NOT what I wrote; one paragraph deals with the article on Sabra/Chatila article,and the second paragraph deals with the overall Israeli-Palestinian situation. Points in the second paragraph are not intended to deal specifically with the Sabra/Chatila situation. You are misinterpreting what I wrote.

01-30-2002, 01:27 PM
"I think Nixon was more or less honest enough for a President. OK, perhaps a little less:-)... but really not all that bad on the scale of "


You have not read Haldeman's diaries? You have not read the transcripts of the White House tapes - not even a Best Of? You have not read Henry "The Turd" Kissinger's memoirs? (The little war criminal is so busy trying to get into the pantheon of greatest diplomats that he can't help incriminating both himself and the Nixon.)


I would suggest that the record (not of his opponents but of those who served him) paints a very different picture that what you want to believe.


Who said that Dishonest=Tough? Ike was a great American President. He was honest to a fault and he had the guts to call it like it is, when he retired ("..military/economic establishment"). I'd rather have Ike than the nincompoop currently pretending to be the boss in the Oval Office.


--Cyrus

01-30-2002, 05:06 PM
see chris's post how the US trained terrorists in school of americas; does that make us a legitimate military target, etc.


brad

01-30-2002, 05:08 PM

01-30-2002, 05:10 PM
Cyrus,


I read the entire White House Transcripts many years ago...it took quite a while to wade through it all.


I'm not saying honest always = weak or dishonest always = tough. However given that we very rarely are blessed with all the desirable qualities in a leader, and given that the world is a very dangerous and dishonest place in many ways, I want a competent leader...one who knows how to wheel and deal with the corrupt bastards he will surely be wheeling and dealing with overseas..and at home too, to a certain extent. I tend to think someone with a bit of experience in these areas himself will probably prove a tougher opponent for our adversaries to crack. As an example, let's not forget that many GOVERNMENTS in the world are inextricably entwined with the world drug trade and smuggling...the scale of corruption in the US is laughably small by comparison. If you'd like a good read and a factual account of this, I recommend The Underground Empire: Where Crime and Governments Embrace by award-winning journalist James Mills. It makes Watergate look like tiddlywinks, truly.

01-30-2002, 05:18 PM
I don't know much at all about what Chris is talking about here. How can I judge if it might make us a legitimate target or not, then. Besides I am wary of drawing equivalences unless the parallels are very strong and the differences are minor. My main point in this part of this thread is that sure we were bad...or even horrible...but if we were horrible, certain others were still 10 or 100 times worse.

01-31-2002, 12:08 AM
Of course they did. The USA stands for the preservation of white anglo-saxon property and assets.Still, as Americans we all benefit. At least we can watch T.V.

02-01-2002, 02:58 AM
"Let's not forget that many GOVERNMENTS in the world are inextricably entwined with the world drug trade and smuggling...the scale of corruption in the US is laughably small by comparison. If you'd like a good read and a factual account of this, I recommend The Underground Empire: Where Crime and Governments Embrace by award-winning journalist James Mills. It makes Watergate look like tiddlywinks, truly."


I'm ordering it.


But then, you too should look into the doings of the pre-eminent drug trader of them all, namely the administration of the United States of America. "Laughably small corruption"?! I don't think so!


My recommendation? White Out by Cockburn and St. Clair.

02-01-2002, 03:18 AM
OK, I'll order it. You might have to order a used copy of the book, however; last year I found it was out of print. If you have trouble finding it, perhaps we could instead do a temporary book swap by mail if you would care to.

02-01-2002, 03:18 AM
"...Worthy of concern and further investigation, certainly."


Certainly. Most certainly.


The instigator of that massacre is now the Prime Minister of Israel. See how far your "investigation" will take you.