PDA

View Full Version : Typical Rove Behavior...



Gayle in MD
04-22-2007, 08:39 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/laurie-david-and-sheryl-crow/karl-rove-gets-thrown-und_b_46501.html

What a pompus, piggy little PR**K

wolfdancer
04-22-2007, 10:53 PM
....and from that site...who would have thought you can tie liberalism, to the recent shootings??? aren't these liberals always screaming for gun control?

Gayle in MD
04-23-2007, 06:39 AM
LOL, like I always say, Repubs/conservs, will have to learn to love their country, more than they hate Liberals. Of course, they definition of liberalism, is about as accurate as their other definitions...

Hungry....Food Challenged
Micromanaging the war....putting some heat on the Iraqi gov.
Politisizing....Congressional oversight
Republican Congressional corruption.....Ethically challenged
We're winning the war....Circumstances dire & degrading
War on Terror...illegal occupation & regime change
Restoring honor to W.H.....destroying U.S. reputation
WMD's...short range rockets

It goes on and on, and always, exaggeration is the means of distortion.

/ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

reggie182
04-23-2007, 09:42 AM
It's so nice to have expert opinion on environmental matters from luminaries like Sheryl Crow.

BTW, was this before or after she proposed the one square limit on toilet paper usage?

Gayle in MD
04-24-2007, 09:31 AM
Typical right wing character distortion, and assasination. However, if one chose instead, to think it through, one could hardly fault anyone for using their fame, and patriotic activism to alert the public to what they believe is a reasonable threat to the world, in an effort to draw attention to pressing issues. The notion that any contribution from the entertainment world, should automatically be dismissed, and/or critisized, certainly does not consider the likely root principles of the effort, which, IMO, is patriotism. This tactic was certainly overlooked nad evaluated very differently when Ronald Reagan ran for the presidency, for example. As far as I know, neither Jane fonda, or Sheryl Crow, sold any arms to the Contras.

We seem to be living in a time when "Ask not, what your Government is doing, or why they're doing it" has replaced the other well know statement of John F. Kennedy. Such sentiments encourage apathy, in place of activism, of which the latter, is a whole lot more valuable, responsible and patriotic in the long run.

Also, if one were well informed, would also be well advised of the likely cause of the automatic rude reaction from Rove, and his likely bad mood and sarcastic actions at the White House Correspondents Dinner, given that the Office Of Special Counsel has launched investigations into Rove's (and others) use of Federal Government Agencies, DOJ, and GSA, and possibly the Esecutive Office Of The Presidency, for political partisan purposes, just one more very important law being broken by this corrupt administration.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-probe24apr24,0,3535547.story?coll=la-home-headlines

One would think that the attention would be on what Rove has been doing, illegally, along with Doan, the General Services Administrator, rather than an onslaught of critical jokes, and attacks on a woman who is willing to devote her time and money to a cause that she believes is an urgent threat to our country, and the world, regardless of the varrying opinions on the subject, and focus on her underlying intention, which is high intention, rather than self gain.

Such actions of dedication and patriotism seem to be most irritating to the right, when the perceived anti-American pertrator is a woman, hence, people like Jane Fonda, who also fits that description of partiotism, high intention and dedication, are attacked in the same ways, and worse. Years later, when we discover that our Government did lie to us, just as she told us they were, when they told us that they did not penetrate certain borders, target civilians, or use poisons hazardous to Vietnamese people, or their children's future health, or the health of our troops, the staunch self-proclaiming patriots of the right, fail to take notice of Fonda's accurate original warnings. Our freedom to speak out against wrong minded Government policies, domestic, or foreign, represent the very best in American tradition and our democratic principles. Some of us understand that "Great nations are easily overcome by their own pride."

We are not omnipotent, hence, public scrutiny of Government, through freedom of speech, and particularly during war time, is entirely appropriate, serves a worthy purpose, advances good policies, and shines a light of policies which have no merit. It is not only entirely appropriate, IMO, but is essential to advancing the same democractic principles which we so vigorously endeavor to dictate to other nations, in our own overreaching foreign policies around the world.

Gayle in Md.

reggie182
04-24-2007, 10:28 AM
Ronald Reagan never sat on top of artillery that was killing American soldiers either, as Jane Fonda did. Curious how the one thing you mention about Reagan is a cheap shot about arms being sold to Contras to fight communists, but not surprising considering your radical left wing politics.

DickLeonard
04-24-2007, 11:06 AM
reggie182 Ronald Reagan made Alberto Gonzaales look like a memory whiz. He didn't remember one thing during the Iran Contra hearings. He only answer was I can't remember that. A line Bill Clinton should have issued then the right wing couldn't say a lie is a lie. Giving George Bush's lying us into a senseless War an okay. ####

Gayle in MD
04-24-2007, 01:44 PM
Jane Fonda didn't buy and distribute the arms and ammo to radical elements in the Middle East, used ultimately, to kill our own soldiers, either.

Oh, and thanks, BTW, for the compliment, since the radical left wing casted every single correct vote, against the stupendously ignorant policy proposals of George Bush, and the results of those right wing failed and devastating policies, have been proven disasterous, short sighted, and full of cockeyed optimism.

No question, the radical left wing must have had a crystal ball, since they predicted every single thing that has happened so far, and also, far in advance of the eventual results.

Gayle in Md.

wolfdancer
04-24-2007, 02:26 PM
Gayle, that post of Reggie's that you are replying to...is a classic example of the warped thinking of many who support this President.
To begin with...simply because you are against GWB and his policies, and vote for the other party....that makes you a left-wing radical....
Then he goes on to approve of the wholde ugly, sordid, Iran-Contra mess...because "they were fighting communism."
Maybe, but at what price?....selling cocaine in Los Angeles,involving the CIA into the drug trade, arming Iran, an enemy with TOW missiles, etc...a President lying to the public on national TV, then forced a week later to admit, partially, the truth....and violating the Boland Amendment, passed by Congress.
As a part of the aftermath and cover-up, Oliver North and Fawn Hill shredded revealing documents,North and Poindexter had their convictions overturned on technicalities...5th amendment violations, Gary Webb, a journalist that reported on the drug distribution, made the Guinness bokk of records by shooting himself twice in the head (the old record was one)while committing suicide.....
"In 1998, CIA Inspector General Frederick Hitz published a two-volume report[35] that substantiated many of Webb's claims, and described how 50 contras and contra-related entities involved in the drug trade had been protected from law enforcement activity by the Reagan-Bush administration, and documented a cover-up of evidence relating to these activities. The report also showed that Oliver North and the NSC were aware of these activities. A report later that same year by the Justice Department Inspector General Michael Bromwich also came to similar conclusions."
Speaking of records, here is one that I believe GWB will tie, or excede, before he gets drummed out of office (I'm hoping the Marine Honor guard will turn their backs as he is escorted out of the WH)
Daddy Warbucks pardoned six people involved in the scandal,[36] namely Elliott Abrams, Duane R. Clarridge, Alan Fiers, Clair George, Robert C. McFarlane, and Caspar W. Weinberger.
To stop the "paper trail" GWB will have his staff working overtime,( the ones that aren't busy shredding damaging documents), mimeographing Presidential Pardons....
So....it's ok to break the law, deal drugs, arm the enemy, etc....if you're fighting communism.....but speak out against this type of secret gov't....and you become a radical left wing, terrorist supporting...whatever.....or you get 2 bullets to the head....

Gayle in MD
04-24-2007, 02:45 PM
LOL, well, I think it's safe to say we'd be a bit optimistic to expect to find any logic involved in any stated support of bush, his appointees, or his Republican supplied blank check for disaster!

They have nothing to fall back on, except denial, and the continued tactic of muddying up the waters with their Rebonics language, reversal of definitions, and corruption of meaning. /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

reggie182
04-24-2007, 03:24 PM
Wolfdancer, you did not really read what I posted apparently, because I didn't even mention George W. Bush. I was speaking about Ronald Reagan, probably the greatest President of the past half century. Certainly far better than Bill Clinton, and yes the current occupant as well, as I actually take issue with many of his policies and spending habits. I am well capable of dispassionate appraisal, unlike the knee jerk haters of all things Republican frequenting this message board. As for Reagan, you can spew all the conspiracy crap you like in a futile attempt to discredit him. Reagan's place in history is set. The Soviet Union's collapse wasn't hastened because Mr. Peanut boycotted the 1980 olympics. Weapons supplied to Afghanistan? See triangular diplomacy. Weapons supplied to Iraq? Again, read a history book, FDR and Stalin sat side by side at Yalta, it didn't mean FDR supported the murder of tens of millions of people at his hand. .

As for the "radicalism" on the message board that I refer to, this I think describes the disturbing extent to which Gayle and others go on daily hateful and obsessed rants about George W. Bush. As if he is the anti-Christ. As if he gets up each morning to propogate as much evil as possible. As if he want to come to your house and kill all your pets.

Gayle in MD
04-24-2007, 03:31 PM
You mean he isn't the AntiChrist?!!! /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

Wow!
Sure acts like one... /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif
/ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

reggie182
04-24-2007, 03:36 PM
I rest my case.

/ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Gayle in MD
04-25-2007, 07:36 AM
Good for you, and now, why not admit that Sheryl Crow was joking about the toilet paper, and your Republican Media Spin Machine, has reported it as though it wasn't a joke? Yet, you attack Crow, using the same BS?

I rest my case, also.

reggie182
04-25-2007, 10:48 AM
Are you really that sure she was joking? Couldn't it be that her publicist told her to "clarify" it as a joke afterward for damage control purposes? /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif Hmmmm

eg8r
04-25-2007, 12:26 PM
Who really cares if it was a joke or not. Who listens to Sheryl Crow about the global warming anyways?

eg8r

Gayle in MD
04-26-2007, 07:33 AM
No. It was a joke from the start, and if you didn't know that, maybe it is because your only info comes from the likes of Faux New, or the Limbaugh's and Coulter's of the world.

/ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

reggie182
04-26-2007, 08:57 AM
No, actually you shouldn't assume it wasn't originally a serious comment, considering just how bat s**t crazy the granola wing of the Democratic party is.

Gayle in MD
04-26-2007, 09:09 AM
I didn't assume,I didn't have to, I had already heard and read the interview, and knew it was a joke.

Next time, check out the story before you jump in with your O'Reilly style factoids. I do like your comparison to bats, since they have radar like ability to avoid collisions, and know exactly where they're going, which is a hell of a lot better than the blow everything out of proportion, and go off half cocked, off the edge of a cliff, Republican Style modus operendi!

/ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Qtec
04-26-2007, 09:47 AM
[ QUOTE ]
As for Reagan, you can spew all the conspiracy crap you like in a futile attempt to discredit him. Reagan's place in history is set. <hr /></blockquote>

Thats for sure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair

The Iran-Contra Affair was a political scandal in the United States during the 1980s.[1] Large volumes of documents relating to the scandal were destroyed or withheld from investigators by Reagan Administration officials.[2] The affair is still shrouded with secrecy and it is very hard to discover the facts. It involved several members of the Reagan Administration who in 1986 helped to illegally sell arms to Iran, an avowed enemy, and used the proceeds to fund, also illegally, the Contras, a right-wing guerrilla organization in Nicaragua. [3]
After the arms sales were not revealed in November 1986, President Ronald Reagan appeared on national television and denied that they had occurred.[4] However, a week later, on November 13, he returned to the airwaves to affirm that weapons were indeed transferred to Iran. He denied that they were part of an exchange for hostages. [5]
The affair
The affair links quite disparate matters: on the one hand was the arms sales to Iran, and on the other, funding of Contra militants in Nicaragua. inDirect funding had been made illegal through the Boland Amendment. The affair emerged when a Lebanese newspaper reported that the U.S. sold arms to Iran in exchange for the release of hostages by Hezbollah. E-mails sent by Oliver North to John Poindexter support this.[6] However, the then Israeli ambassador to the U.S. claims that the reason was to establish links with elements of the military in Iran. Moreover, the arms sales apparently were underway already by 1980.[7] It is also noteworthy that the Contras did not receive all of their finances from arms sales, but also through drug trafficking of which the US was found to be aware.[8]This is detailed in the "Drug money" section below.



Would you call selling arms for hostages appeasement?


[ QUOTE ]
The Soviet Union's collapse wasn't hastened because Mr. Peanut boycotted the 1980 olympics. <hr /></blockquote>

Are you saying outspending the USSR was an actual plan?
Truth is, when the the neo-cons were exaggerating the strength of the USSR at the time when they were actually very weak!
The Army was falling apart.

Reagan sold arms to the enemy- thats treason .
He financed terrorists who were involved with drugs.


Oh, sorry, I forgot, Reagan could never remember what he did. The guy got shot after all. He should have been fishing, not pretending to run the country.

Q

reggie182
04-26-2007, 10:11 AM
Curious you did not mention once the fact that the Contras were supported expressly for the purpose of fighting communists, but those of your ilk never were really that concerned about actively opposing communist expansionism, were you?

As for treason against country, just another crazy statement from a leftist frustrated by Reagan's place in history. Again, the left in the country did virtually nothing but embolden the Soviet Union, possibly because mnay of them sympathized with Marxism.

And yes, outspending and economically weakening the enemy was part of the plan. The plan wouldn't have worked obviously if the nuclear freeze people and other assorted left wing commie appeasing goofballs had gotten their way though. Thank goodness Jimmy Carter was defeated.

Gayle in MD
04-26-2007, 11:14 AM
Curious you did not mention once the fact that the Contras were supported expressly for the purpose of fighting communists, but those of your ilk never were really that concerned about actively opposing communist expansionism, were you?

<font color="red">That's right, we were smart enough to know that communism would fall of it's own flaws, which it did, and that fighting in wars against it, was not as effective as econimic sanctions in bringing down communism. </font color>
As for treason against country, just another crazy statement from a leftist frustrated by Reagan's place in history.

<font color="red">Reagan's place in history has been completely overblown, and much of what he did illegally, has been recued from the light of day. He claimed to have ended the Cold War, when in fact it piddled out all on it's own, just as Carter has said it would. </font color>

Again, the left in the country did virtually nothing but embolden the Soviet Union, possibly because mnay of them sympathized with Marxism.
<font color="red">You're a read good Rovarian style slimer, who re-writes history to suit you're ignorance of the facts. Unfortunately for you, Americans are tired of it, and hence, most don't go by Republican versions of the facts. </font color>
And yes, outspending and economically weakening the enemy was part of the plan. The plan wouldn't have worked obviously if the nuclear freeze people and other assorted left wing commie appeasing goofballs had gotten their way though. Thank goodness Jimmy Carter was defeated. <font color="red">Again, you are obviously ignorant about where the plan originated. Jimmy Carter's foreign policy ended one of the most volital situations in the Middle East, without launching a war, and succeeded by purseuading tow leaders to talk, until they could burry the htachet, something that no Republican has ever accomplished, not that diplomatic success and sanctions applied together as a policy, would ever be likely to occur to any bomb loving chichen hawk. </font color>

/ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

reggie182
04-26-2007, 06:06 PM
Eventually all despotic regimes fall of their own weight. The roman empire is a classic example. Nazism likely would have eventually collapsed of it's own weight for lack of any moral or ethical code. Charles Lindbergh could have been right. The point is how much longer would the Soviet Union have existed beyond the point it did had the proactive approach not been taken? The Carter approach was one of appeasement, and the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviets is an example of how an evil regime responds to weakness.

Gayle in MD
04-26-2007, 09:41 PM
I don't agree. The Carter approach was to use diplomacy, and build allies, lead others to international peace agreements, and abandoning their grudges, through peace accords, unlike our present trigger happy cowboy, who has ignored and destroyed sixty years of diplomatic efforts, and traditional American committments and our advances through a policy of building trust, and turning enemies, into allies, by pointing the way to their own best interests, through talks and agreements.

Carter did not send the evil labels, and insulting pompus messages to insult those very countries with whom we needed to negotiate, for the sake of peace, and the avoidence of war.
Carter didn't make everything worse, for everybody. He was an honest man, who never hurt the credibility of our country, unlike the present pompus, arrogant, lawbreaking dictator we have now, who ignores the wishes of the American people, and expert advice, in order to save face from his disasterous policies, and drag them out to hand over to the next president.

Unfortunately, the Republican war machine, had branded intellectual solutions, diplomatic negotiations, and peace accords, as being appeasement tactics. In fact, they are the ways in which reasonable intelligent men, lead, settle great issues, with unreasonable foreign leaders, by shining the light on, and creating dividends, on behalf of all concerned. Something that swaggering, trigger happy, chickenhawks, operating on sheer instinctand poor judgement, could never grasp, or promote. Hence, they spend most of their time trying to convince the world that the messes they make are justifiable, in spite of the reality of the dire results, which we can all see with our own eyes, well, alteast those of us who go beyond the RNC talking points, and do not communicate in terms of Bah Bah Bah.

What proactive approach? Reagan didn't do anything proactive to end the cold war. Reagan was in the right place, at the right time, to slurp up for himself, fifty years of sanctions and economic pressure, by former presdients. He's the most over-rated President of our times. He broke the law, and lied about it. And, his tax and spending policies, through us into debt and recession, eleven tax hikes later, we were still straightening out the mess he made.



Gayle in Md.

reggie182
04-26-2007, 10:53 PM
The Carter approach to virtually everything was a failure. Double digit inflation. Skyrocketing interest rates. A Soviet Union unimpressed and emboldened (see Afghanistan invasion again), and a national humiliation in Iran. Why did the Iranians hold those hostages so long? Simple, they don't respect weakness. At best it could be said that Carter meant well feebly. Certain regimes and philosphies can't be dealt with strictly by playing nice, Reagan understood that and called the Soviet Union for what it was, and "evil empire". Right place right time? Well he certainly was the right man at the right time, I'll give you that. This really is a futile argument because the old nuclear freeze gang who thought he would start world war III are incapable of giving him credit for anything, or admitting that they were wrong.

Gayle in MD
04-27-2007, 06:15 AM
Poster: reggie182
Subject: Re: Typical Rove Behavior...

The Carter approach to virtually everything was a failure. Double digit inflation. Skyrocketing interest rates. <font color="red">Standard presidential inheritance when one follows a Republican into office. Perhaps you think we should have kept Gerry Ford in office, then we could have followed his genius plans for the economy, which amounted to "Pull in your belts" Sor of reminds one of Nancy Reagans genius solution for the drug crises, "Just say no" Pahleeeeze! </font color> A Soviet Union unimpressed and emboldened (see Afghanistan invasion again), <font color="red">Nice try, but had absolutely nothing to do with us. As in Little Bushies ME Iraq plan, it was all about oil, and should have been a warning to other nations not to get mired down in Middle East countries, where the thugs you think you're helping, turn around and kill your troops, just as they are doing to this day in Iraq, and the leaders who are supposed to be thankful for you assistance, look the other way, and laugh up their sleves over having dupped yet another western nationa into taking their bait. But then Bushy thought his Daddy's dissenters had a good plan, now we know there was no plan at all, past the bombs, Neocons don't have Plan B's, just don't have the ability to think past their bombs and rockets, to the aftermath. </font color> and a national humiliation in Iran. <font color="red">Why would the man who has achieved more peace, in the Middle East, and without firing a shot, than any other president, be humiliated? </font color> Why did the Iranians hold those hostages so long? <font color="red">A good question, but we'll never know the answer to that since Reagan's tactics for getting them out, have been deep sixed, but the arms for hostages deals definately contributed to arms and munitions in the hands of terrorists, and future international problems for America. He did away with all the pregress Carter had made to free of Middle East Oil, and address the core of the issue in the Middle East, reducing our barrell usage more than any president in history. Then Republicans came back with their thug style diplomacy of, runnign rough shod over the rest of the world, and bribing our way into more oil to pollute the environment.</font color> Simple, they don't respect weakness. <font color="red">I take it you equait Carter's stunning accomplishment between Isreal and Egypt, a sign of weakness? This is the classic neocon mistake, not recognizing the value of peaceful negotiations, and diplomacy, which make the world a better place, rather than stirring up more war, and more enemies. </font color> At best it could be said that Carter meant well feebly. <font color="red">The only president to significantly reduce our oil usage, and was responsible for putting in place reasonable and successful diplomatic principles, which Reagan later said he kept in place. </font color> Certain regimes and philosphies can't be dealt with strictly by playing nice, <font color="red">People, are people, and all leaders have interests and needs which can be utilized on behalf of peace. This is the flaw in neocon style policy, and the reason why Bush has exascerbated all of our problems, going in half cocked, like a bull in a China Shop, certainly hasn't helped our international circumstances one bit, but then, you righties don't recognize the intelligence which comes from our own National Security Estimates, from 16 separate agencies combined, unless it is a glossy advertisement, created by the liars that created the Greatest Story Ever Sold, and full of outrageous lies. </font color> Reagan understood that and called the Soviet Union for what it was, and "evil empire". <font color="red">The Solviet Union was coming down long before Reagan ever took office. Reagan was an actor, adept at making himseolf LOOK like a hearo, while mumbling around for eight years, in a fog of memory loss, waiting for Nancy to tell him what to say, and who to fire, and how to duck questions. </font color> Right place right time? Well he certainly was the right man at the right time, <font color="red">right, we're still paying for his Arms for hsotages blunders. </font color> I'll give you that. This really is a futile argument because the old nuclear freeze gang who thought he would start world war III are incapable of giving him credit for anything, or admitting that they were wrong. <font color="red">right, we had to wait for the next brilliant actor to take center stage, and launch his all hat no cattle style cowboy diplomacy, as he unsettles am already volital, entire region with insults and bombs, mires us down into massive debt, looses our allies, and creates more danger for us, and the rest of the world, by expanding and providing credibility to the terrorist philosophies, and increasing terrorist numbers, and attacks all over the world. </font color>

<font color="red">The last decent Republican President was Dwight David Eisenhower, and every single one after him, failed to heed his warnings regarding the Military Industrial Complex, and left this country in a recession, and with huge deficits. </font color> /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

DickLeonard
04-27-2007, 07:36 AM
Gayle this could be the first time I disagree with you. It was Lech Walesa who brought down Communism when he stood up against communism. He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. ####

Gayle in MD
04-27-2007, 08:33 AM
My dear friend, you can disagree with me anytime you want!! /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

I think he did contribute, but also, their economic circumstances, were a huge reason. Any country which removes freedom, and the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and intrudes into the private lives of it's citizens, while also operating for the benefit of the few elite at the top of the barrel, will fall, eventually.

We are seeing the roots of fascism growing. Our corporate fascist thieves, and the Bush jury rigging, with high oil prices, with resulting oil profits recycled into the economy, false economic numbers resulting in a trumped real estate market, and other investments, we;'re heading back down the famous republican deep recession, and the middle class joins the victims of poverty. Only the top two percent, are laughing all the way to the bank, Dick and George in the lead! /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Love you friend...

Love,
Gayle

Qtec
04-27-2007, 09:19 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote reggie182:</font><hr> Curious you did not mention once the fact that the Contras were supported expressly for the purpose of fighting communists, but those of your ilk never were really that concerned about actively opposing communist expansionism, were you?<font color="blue"> What did the new Nic Govt ever do to harm the USA?
If you say that its OK to fund terrorists to attack a country just because you don't agree with their political system, then you support Al Q and their ilk! They also think that their attacks on the USA and in Iraq are justified. </font color>

As for treason against country, just another crazy statement from a leftist frustrated by Reagan's place in history. <hr /></blockquote>



[ QUOTE ]
The armed resistance to the Sandinistas in Costa Rica initially called itself the Nicaraguan Revolutionary Democratic Alliance (ADREN) and was known as the 15th of September Legion. It later formed an alliance, called the Nicaraguan Democratic Force (FDN), which comprised other groups including MISURASATA and the Nicaraguan Democratic Union. Together, the members of these groups were generally called Contras. The Sandinistas condemned them as terrorists, and human rights organizations expressed serious concerns over reports of Contra attacks on civilians. In 1982, under pressure from Congress, the U.S. State Department declared Contra activities terrorism.[citation needed] The Congressional intelligence committee confirmed reports of Contra atrocities such as rape, torture, summary executions, and indiscriminate killings.

After the U.S. Congress prohibited federal funding of the Contras in 1983, the Reagan administration continued to back the Contras by covertly selling arms to Iran and channelling the proceeds to the Contras (The Iran-Contra Affair.) When this scheme was revealed, Reagan admitted that he knew about the Iranian "arms for hostages" dealings but professed ignorance about the proceeds funding the Contras; for this, National Security Council aide Lt. Col. Oliver North took much of the blame.

Senator John Kerry's 1988 U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations report on Contra-drug links concluded that "senior U.S. policy makers were not immune to the idea that drug money was a perfect solution to the Contras' funding problems."[1] According to the National Security Archive, Oliver North had been in contact with Manuel Noriega, Panama's drug-lord.

The Reagan administration's support for the Contras continued to stir controversy well into the 1990s. In August 1996, San Jose Mercury News reporter Gary Webb published a series titled Dark Alliance, linking the origins of crack cocaine in California to the contras. Freedom of Information Act inquiries by the National Security Archive and other investigators unearthed a number of documents showing that White House officials, including Oliver North, knew about and supported using money raised via drug trafficking to fund the contras. Sen. John Kerry's report in 1988 led to the same conclusions, however, major media outlets and the Justice Department denied the allegations <hr /></blockquote>

Selling arms to the enemy, lying to congress, supporting terrorists, crack cocain and Noriega...............? Helping the Contras to sell drugs to American kids!!??

Before there was a peoples revolution in Nic, it was a dictatorship with the same family ruling for 45 years! It wasn't a Democracy and the people had no power.
American paranoia about communists doesn't justify anything! Geez, according to todays Rep party, anything left of Rush Limbaugh these days is a communist!

Q

Bobbyrx
04-30-2007, 02:35 PM
another view: web page (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NzQ5Njk5Y2I1MmY5Y2YzMGYzMDhkOGQ4MzZjNDJlMDg=)

Bobbyrx
04-30-2007, 03:25 PM
You've used "our own National Security Estimates, from 16 separate agencies combined" quite a few times and I finally found the article. web page (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/world/middleeast/24terror.html?ei=5088&amp;emc=rs&amp;en=da252be85d1b39fa&amp;e x=1316750400&amp;partner=rssnyt)
Of course it's from the NY Times.
It's sources "all spoke only on condition of anonymity"
The most interesting part to me was "It also examines how the Internet has helped spread jihadist ideology, and how cyberspace has become a haven for terrorist operatives who no longer have geographical refuges in countries like Afghanistan" So I guess Al Gore is to blame for the spread of jihanist ideology.

eg8r
04-30-2007, 05:45 PM
You are wasting your time. A few weeks ago I tried to point out the non-story about W about to blow up his car was not what the left was making it to seem. Certain people on this board blindly believe what they wanted to believe instead of actually reading the quoted words. When it was brought to light (that they were indeed blatantly wrong) they put their tails between their legs and whimpered back home waiting in angst for their next (non)story. Well, here it is, typical liberal drivel.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
05-01-2007, 06:34 AM
You are critical of the NIE, because it is written about in the NYT? BWA HA HA HA....

FYI, the National Intelligence Estimate, is the work of 16 National Intelligence and National Security Agencies. It is the document, more than any other, which is used in determining when, where and if, our country should launch war, and if we are at war, this document advises on the results of the war.

I don't rely on any Newspapers, or cable programs, for my information, BTW. I watched as top level Intelligence Agents, addressed the Senate Intelligence Committee.

It may interest you to know that Bush and Cheney didn't even ask for a NIE before deciding to occupy Iraq. The Senate Intel. Comm. insisted they provide one, which they did. The effort, pre-Iraq invasion, though, was rendered pointless, by many in the field, after administration tampering, added Madison Avenue style gloss and hubris.

Here is a link to the document, revealing what has been released thus far, of the latest NIE, post Iraq. Many reporters, however, who have sources within those agencies, do report on issues included which have not been declassified. The report, in an of itself, provides a good deal of information regarding the increase and splintering of the jihadist extremists, resulting from our foreign policy disaster in Iraq.

http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/Declassified_NIE_Key_Judgments.pdf

As usual, your post is way off the mark. Do a bit of research before you jump on here with hubris of your own. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Bobbyrx
05-01-2007, 10:32 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> You are critical of the NIE, because it is written about in the NYT? BWA HA HA HA.... <font color="blue">No, I was critical of a NYT reporter spinning a report that says : United States-led counterterrorism efforts have seriously damaged the leadership of al-Qa’ida and disrupted its operations; however, we judge that al-Qa’ida will continue to pose the greatest threat to the Homeland and US interests abroad by a single terrorist organization. We also assess that the global jihadist movement—which includes al-Qa’ida, affiliated and independent terrorist groups, and emerging networks and cells—isspreading and adapting to counterterrorism efforts.• Although we cannot measure the extent of the spread with precision, a large body of all-source reporting indicates that activists identifying themselves as jihadists,although a small percentage of Muslims, are increasing in both number and geographic dispersion.• If this trend continues, threats to US interests at home and abroad will becomemore diverse, leading to increasing attacks worldwide.•
NO one ever said they were going to lie down and go away. Of course they are going to change their tactics when as the report says "United States-led counterterrorism efforts have seriously damaged the leadership of al-Qa’ida and disrupted its operations". Spinning this to say Bush is making terrorism worse by cutting off the head of al-Qa’ida by using unnamed sources is nuts.

Gayle in MD
05-02-2007, 05:58 AM
The news article, mirrors the National Intelligence Estimate. Not only that, but the obvious increase in terrorist attacks since Bush stirred up the Middle East, have measurably increased. Add to that, the Iraq study group, also stated that our presence in Iraq, has given terrorists training ground, and emboldened their cause, thus increasing their numbers, and their violence.

If you don't think that Bush's occupation has increased terrorism, numbers of terrorists, violence, death and destruction, you're in denial of the facts.

If one studies other National Intelligence Estimates, on would discover that there was for years unified agreement among intelligence experts, that any occupation in the Middle East, would cause great unrest, and result in regional instability, and ultimately make matters worse. The vast majority of M.E. experts contend that such is the result of Bush's policies. Hence, you are welcome to your own opinion, but not to your own facts. The fact is, this fiasco has been the worst foreign policy disaster in history, and many highly educated intel experts say, even much worse than Vietnam.

bottom line, a bunch of fascist neocon elitists from the American Enterprise Institute, put Bush into office to perform their idiotic ideology of pre-emptive war, occupation of Iraq for regime change, and contentions that there were WMD's, Saddam was a nuclear threat, and America should launch unending war. All this against the opinions of our best and brightest, in and out of the military, in and out of Government service in the intelligence field, and their educated opinions. It is now obvious, that they, the neocons, were wrong, and accumulated intelligence predictions, were right. Bush made a huge mess. Now we can't get out of it, we're stuck in a quagmire. Even former neocons, agree that Bush screwed it up royal! The leadership we struck down, has been replaced by many many more leaders. Playing wack-a-mole in Iraq, accomplishes absolutely nothing as regards our safety here at home, and in fact, we are less safe than before Bush took office, due to his failed policy in Iraq, and so says our own National Security Estimate. I'd say it is likely that the un-named sources existed, and were quoted accurately, since parts of the document (NIE) later released, report the very same results. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Bobbyrx
05-02-2007, 09:20 AM
"United States-led counterterrorism efforts have seriously damaged the leadership of al-Qa’ida and disrupted its operations" So you are saying this should never have been done because in your opinion we are not as safe. The course we were on before seems to have led to 9/11.

Gayle in MD
05-03-2007, 07:30 AM
We had the chance to knock out alQaeda, bin Laden, and the top people in the organization, out completely, in AFGHANISTAN, but when Gary Brentsen, a Special Forces Marine, radioed for help, the commanders were focused on Iraq, and didn't send in the additional arms to assist in completely wiping out bin Ladens' entire top level, including him. Iraq, has been a distraction away from our greatest threat, and along with that, it has been the source of the creation of many other terrorist organizations that don't even have anything at all to do with Alqaeda, or bin Laden. George Bush, along with the huffing, puffing elitist neocons with no common sense, who pushed for this mess in Iraq, has grown terrorism, all over the world, emboldened their cause, and increased their numbers, and contributors. Those are the facts. This mess belongs to Bush, not Clinton. Had Bush paid attention to those experts left over from the Clinton Administration, 9/11 would never have happened. Instead, Bush, Cheney, Rice, and Rumsfeld, with the help of their fascist rightwing pundits, ignored the warnings pre 9/11, and were focused strictly on Iraq, where no terrorist existed, and no WMD's existed, from the moment they barged their way into the White House. Further, the country was degraded from years of sanctions, from the Clinton administration. Iraq was no immediate threat. bin Laden, is still alive and well and planning the next atack. AlQaeda has regrouped, and is stronger than ever. All this results from George Bush and his idiotic polciy in Iraq. We don't have to be fighting in a civil war in Baghdad Iraq, to get the very few alqaeda who are centered in the Anbar Province, nor do we have to make sitting ducks out of our troops, in order to fight terrorism. The people we are training, turn on our troops and kill them. the leader of the country, is corrupt. Before we went in, I was asking, what is the point for our country to continue to wast blood and treasure to prop up new leaders in other countries, who end up turning on us in the end, or trying to spread democracy, when the people in the Middle East, vote in another now thug. The whole policy is idiotic. Reagan tried to do the same thing. Dumb! Handing over weapons to barbarians, is stupid, period. They always end up using them against US, in the long run.

"United States-led counterterrorism efforts have seriously damaged the leadership of al-Qa’ida and disrupted its operations" <font color="red">bin Laden is the leader. bin Laden is still free, and has enlisted new top level leadership, and scattered cells all over the world, while we've been screwing around in Iraq, to help people who hate us, and want to kill us. </font color> So you are saying this should never have been done because in your opinion we are not as safe. <font color="red"> In my opinion, and in the opinion of 16 National Intelligence and National Security Agencies, we are at greater risk than before we went into Iraq, because we went into Iraq. </font color> The course we were on before seems to have led to 9/11. <font color="red">Terrorism has existed since way before Clinton got into office. Tell me, what did Reagan do after 244 Marines were slaughtered in their sleep? NOTHING! Iraq, has done nothing to prevent terrorism. It is a training ground for terrorists, and a cause Celebre' for enlisting more terrorists. Iraq has been the most disasterous foreign policy blunder in the history of this country. </font color>







Gayle in Md.

DickLeonard
05-03-2007, 07:51 AM
Gayle I watch Ronald Reagan jr. on Hardball and when Chris Matthews mention his father to him I always get this message from his body language. You didn't know the bastard like I did. People talk of him as a God but you didn't know him like I did.

I didn't mean to give him a walk on the 242 Marine's killed. The Reps like to point out how strong they on on defense while ignoring how weak they really are. ####

Gayle in MD
05-03-2007, 08:13 AM
There's nothing more disasterous than being mis-guided, and there is no doubt, that invading Iraq, instead of a hell bent course against alQaeda, was completely mis-guided.

Republicans are nothing more than a well oiled Madison Avenue Public Relations machine designed to cover up their true mission, corporate fascism. They accomplish their mission easily because their followers will subscribe to any policy, regardless of its idiotic premise, as long as the poor and hungry here in this country don't get any help, and they can save a few bucks on their taxes. They're as penny wise and pound foolish as you can find. They bashed Democrats, and called emergency assistance for our own people here, victims of Katrina, PORK, while they stand by silently as Halliburton, and other corporate fascists, steal from us by the billions in Iraq, and our people are dying on the other side of the world, for a bunch of people who refuse to stand up and fight for their own peace, and worse yet, they're killing our troops. Republicans don't mind spending 9 billion dollars a month to benefit Iraqis, but just don't let the Congress insist on financial support for our citizens, or our troops. I hope the Democrats will send that bill back over and over again, unchanged. The bill says, we have other needs right here, and you're not sending our people into harms way unless you give them what they need, and take proper care of them when they come back, and spend some of this money to protect American shores, and American interests. George Bush, Rice, Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney should be impeached for incompetence, and lies before the Congress of the United States, a felony. Republicans lie about everything, including what is in that bill. Their methods are always the same, muddy up the waters, lie throught their teeth, slabnder the Democrats, while they subsidize the corporate fascists who are destroying our country, and overlook every single emergency that faces us here.

I can't wait until the next election!

Gayle in Md.

reggie182
05-03-2007, 10:28 AM
Ron Reagan Jr. and Patti Davis were both spoiled brats. They were well provided for and paid their father back by going out of their way to embarrass him, albeit they were kinder to him in his later years with Alzheimers. The two children in that family who truly took after and revered him were Michael and Maureen.

Bobbyrx
05-03-2007, 12:27 PM
There is no proof anywhere that shows our military had Bin Ladin and let him go. It's not like they can't do two things at the same time.

Gayle in MD
05-03-2007, 01:40 PM
such a broad sweeping statement from such an ill informed poster... Jawbreaker Written by Gary Brentsen, a Special forces Marine, tells the whole story. The Special Forces had bL, had their own Arab speaking guy, talking to him on the cell phone of one of bL's already dead, top level people, had his location, and just needed some help from the commanders in Iraq. None was sent. Iraq, was more important. Read a book once in a while.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
05-03-2007, 01:41 PM
LOL, guess you din't read Michael's book! /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Bobbyrx
05-04-2007, 09:42 AM
No, but I did read Tommy Franks book (who your guy calls a great American but disagrees with). So you believe your guy and I'll believe mine....

Gayle in MD
05-04-2007, 10:13 AM
Interesting, since Franks is the man who refused to send in additional support, in order to get bin Laden. Mr. Brentsen, OTOH, has witnesses, who are, and were, among the Special Forces Marines who went into Afghanistan, hell bent on getting bin Laden, and al Qaeda, the failure of which, lays right at the foot of Franks, and has allowed alQaeda to re-strengthen, and expand, and hence, created the greates threst America has EVER faced. The operation has been documented. Iraq, did not attack us. Saddam, was not involved in 9/11, or with al Qaeda, also documented by the 9/11 commission. Saddam has no WMD's also documented by the 9/11 commission. bin Laden, is our greatest threat, also, documented by the National Intelligence Estimate. He is now stronger, due to our occupation of Iraq, also documented by our own NIE. Franks, was a huge part of the Screw up after the occupation, also an accepted fact.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in Md.

DickLeonard
05-05-2007, 10:23 AM
Bobbyrx I guess you didn't see the pictures of BinLaden taken by a drone. The Army said afterwards that from now on the Drones will be armed. That worked, now no more pictures of BinLaden and we think our Army has Intelligence officers. Nobody thought we were tipping off the enemy.####

Bobbyrx
05-06-2007, 09:57 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Interesting, since Franks is the man who refused to send in additional support, in order to get bin Laden. Mr. Brentsen, OTOH, has witnesses, who are, and were, among the Special Forces Marines who went into Afghanistan, hell bent on getting bin Laden, and al Qaeda, the failure of which, lays right at the foot of Franks, <font color="blue"> So says your author. Somehow I'll bet you don't believe the 250 swift boat vets that said Kerry distorted the facts of his 4 month Vietnam stint </font color> and has allowed alQaeda to re-strengthen, and expand, and hence, created the greates threst America has EVER faced. <font color="blue"> Because as your 16 intelligence agencies said, the leadership of alQaeda has been severely damaged so the remaining members have splintered off just as they would have if OBL were dead if he's not already. </font color> The operation has been documented. Iraq, did not attack us. <font color="blue"> Who ever said they did? </font color> Saddam, was not involved in 9/11, or with al Qaeda, also documented by the 9/11 commission. Saddam has no WMD's also documented by the 9/11 commission. <font color="blue"> The 9/11 commission also said the intelligence was not altered to justify the war but I bet you don't buy that part </font color> bin Laden, is our greatest threat, also, documented by the National Intelligence Estimate. He is now stronger, due to our occupation of Iraq, also documented by our own NIE. Franks, was a huge part of the Screw up after the occupation, also an accepted fact. <font color="blue"> the world being flat is an accepted fact by some web page (http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm) </font color>