posted
Unsupported allegation. No one knows who leaked that info. Since it doesn't seem to be a very well-kept secret in the first place, and the journalist who published her name has claimed that he asked the CIA for confirmation and they didn't tell him he couldn't say anything, and says he was told her name by several sources, and since 50-odd leaks like this are probed every year without signifigant results, It doesn't seem comprable.
I mean, next you're going to tell me Halliburton overcharged the Army for its oil in Iraq.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Really, how many meetings on WMD are we supposed to believe the Treasury Secretary was in on?
Bush: Paul, do we have enough cash to invade Iraq?
O'Neil: ...um...only if we create a massive defecit that will last forever and that...
Bush: GREAT! Thanks for coming by, Paul.
As treasury secretary, he was a permanent member of the National Security council. I'm no expert but I would think that this would get him into a lot of meetings about the security of the nation. Although seeing as the info about WMD was primarily made up bu Bushco, he probably didn't hear about many WMD.
-------------------- "and none of your usual boobery." M. Burns
Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Even as a NSC member, he wouldnt be informed on all (or even most) aspects of the investigation.
Now if Powell were to say something like that...
I was watching an excertp from O'Neil's interview this morning and he actually seemed suprised that his book would incur a public backlash against him personally. Either he's a great actor or a complete moron.
Possibly a bit of both.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
quote:Even as a NSC member, he wouldnt be informed on all (or even most) aspects of the investigation.
And you know this how? I'm sure as a Joe Smoe, you would know more about what goes on in the highest level councils in your country than someone assigned the position.
quote:Either he's a great actor or a complete moron.
Possibly a bit of both.
Perhaps you are right, the republicans are known for picking complete morons to lead their party.
-------------------- "and none of your usual boobery." M. Burns
Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: On a middle eastern note, Democracy is about to be subverted in Iran: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3386771.stm This could be the start of something baaaad.
"Baaaad" as in "worse than when you subverted Iran's democracy yourself by installing the Shah to protect your oil interests there which prompted the Islamic Revolution and led to thirty years of fundie-rule"?
[ January 13, 2004, 08:20 AM: Message edited by: Cartman ]
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Yeah, this is almost as bad as when Ug supported Togar's clubbing of Gunt for the dry side of the cave, and then turned around and clubbed Togar six weeks later.
I mean, if you're going to play "who did what bad to whom first," you might as well go all the way, right?
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
Right. Just don't insult the Iranians who are fighting and dying for social reforms in their country by pretending to be concerned about a situation people like you were responsible for in the first place. Or better yet, ask THEM what THEY think of your so-called "old crap" before you raise that defense again, asshole.
-------------------- ".mirrorS arE morE fuN thaN televisioN" - TEH PNIK FLAMIGNO
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:I mean, if you're going to play "who did what bad to whom first," you might as well go all the way, right?
Or, possibly, Cartman could just be eloquently and succinctly pointing out the part the US has previously played in supporting fundamentalist regimes when it has suited 'American' interests, and so where do we get off saying this one is bad where the other wasn't. Not that either was good, and clearly this is a bad thing, but Cartman does have a point. Whereas your clumsy caveman analogy does not seem to. Bring a real argument next time.
posted
Yes, but America is the country of Freedom and Liberty. These are American values that no other country in the entire world shares. Therefore America (and, by extension, the Republican party) is always right. See, doesn't that make sense?
-------------------- "I am an almost extinct breed, an old-fashioned gentleman, which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-bitch when it suits me." --Jubal Harshaw
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: On a middle eastern note, Democracy is about to be subverted in Iran: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3386771.stm This could be the start of something baaaad.
"Baaaad" as in "worse than when you subverted Iran's democracy yourself by installing the Shah to protect your oil interests there which prompted the Islamic Revolution and led to thirty years of fundie-rule"?
Yeah, I'm always doing that kind of stuff on the weekend: it's a hobby of mine.
I meant, "Baaaad" as in the current majority that LIKES some degree of self-determination will be completely governed by strict fundmentalists under a false democratic pretense and violence will likely ensue.
And yes, the US has certainly played a role in the situation (for all who think I was'nt reading your posts).
[ January 13, 2004, 03:33 PM: Message edited by: Jason Abbadon ]
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
quote:Even as a NSC member, he wouldnt be informed on all (or even most) aspects of the investigation.
And you know this how? I'm sure as a Joe Smoe, you would know more about what goes on in the highest level councils in your country than someone assigned the position.
You know, I thought his position was one of the many offices that is only invited to NSC sessions as deemed essential to the situation, but I looked it up and you're right: he would have been required at NSC sessions What do ya know? So, I may have spoken too soon. I cant say it's impossible that he heard there were no WMD to be found (because we've ALL heard -or at least suspected- that) but it seems unlikely that he'd be briefed of the search's progress specifically. And that's what he's claiming: to have been directly told there were NO WMD to be found. The timing of this "revelation" makes the whole allogation seem bogus and rubs me wrong. "Tell all" books piss me off.
Is he trying to inform the public or using his former position to sell books?
CNN reports today:
quote:Ousted Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill said today he wishes he could take back unflattering comments he made about President Bush in an upcoming book, but doesn't believe he gave its author classified documents.
quote:Either he's a great actor or a complete moron.
Possibly a bit of both.
Perhaps you are right, the republicans are known for picking complete morons to lead their party. [/QUOTE] Gotta agree there, but it's not so much the leaders I hate as the prople the appoint to actually run the country (the Poindexters, Ashcrofts, Oliphants and the rest of the jerks we dont get to vote on).
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
"'Baaaad' as in 'worse than when you subverted Iran's democracy yourself by installing the Shah to protect your oil interests there which prompted the Islamic Revolution and led to thirty years of fundie-rule'?"
Now, now... We screwed up the Iranian government to protect British oil interests.
By the way, I recently read the book All the Shah's Men by Stephen Kinzer. It's an account of the 1953 coup. Pretty interesting read. I'd recommend it.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Cartman: Right. Just don't insult the Iranians who are fighting and dying for social reforms in their country
Ironic, given the Iranian decision to install the Fundies, who turned out to be even more repressive than the Shah was.
quote: Originally posted by Balaam Xumucane: Or, possibly, Cartman could just be eloquently and succinctly pointing out the part the US has previously played in supporting fundamentalist regimes when it has suited 'American' interests, and so where do we get off saying this one is bad where the other wasn't.
Succinct, yes. However, the next time Cartman says something eloquently will be the first. His temper is not conducive to that sort of speech, as he prefers to utilize "asshole," and similar erudite comments.
However, my point was that claiming that past behavior, on the part of nations, necessarily negates OR supports the validity of future behavior is... specious at best, deliberately obtuse at worst. Many nations other than the United States have gone to war with former allies, or allied with former enemies. Such has always been the case, and is likely to always be the case as long as nations persist.
It's a reducio ad absurdium argument. One might as well blame the British and Russians, who invaded Iran in 1941 and deposed Reza Shah, who while a bit dictatorial, was also hailed as a great reformer who "gained true independence for Iran," and replaced him with his weak son and a strong parliament, which Mosaddeq eventually rose to control with his own authoritarian style, until the coup.
Anyway, as TSN kindly pointed out, He wasn't right about whose interests were being protected (In fact, the truth is that the Brits suggested the operation to the CIA), Although, given the option of protecting the interests of "the west" vs the soviet union, I'd pick the west any day, so the point sort of crumbles there, as it turns from an "The US is selfish" argument to a "Defense of Europe" scenario.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Reza Shah may have been a "great reformer", but he was still a sadistic dictator. I mean, Hitler and Stalin "made the trains run on time", but that remains little consolation for their problems.
And the coup in Iran wasn't a "defense of Europe scenario". The Brits just couldn't stand that their "right" to oppress Iranians and take their oil was being interfered with. "Iran will go communist if Mossadegh stays in power" was just the semi-plausible excuse they used to help convince Eisenhower.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by TSN: Reza Shah may have been a "great reformer", but he was still a sadistic dictator.
Since my Iran site didn't contain that in his bio, what'd he do? Anything specifically worse than other Middle Eastern leaders of his time?
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic