Democrats and dictators

[John Ashcroft]

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Two years ago, former President Jimmy Carter traveled to Havana to break bread with the Dean of Dictators, Fidel Castro -- for 45 years the brutal ruler of Cuba's island paradise. While there, Carter not only embraced a despot responsible for torturing and repressing his people -- but took time to denounce his own country, saying the United States "is hardly perfect in human rights."

I've got an idea, let's give him the Nobel Peace Prize!...

Castro was one of the few tyrants who failed to grace William Jefferson Blythe Clinton's social calendar, though Clinton made it a habit to meet regularly with the Dictator-of-the-Month while in office. Yasser Arafat visited 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. no less than 11 times. Be it Fidel Castro, Yasser Arafat or former Soviet dictator Mikhail Gorbachev, it seems American liberals crave the affection of brutal authoritarians whose regimes have brought nothing but agony and cruelty to their people.

Last week is a case study in liberal support for dictators. First, it was none other than Saddam Hussein. Despite numerous reports of the Iraqi dictator's bloody atrocities, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton felt it necessary to speak up on his behalf -- commending his treatment of women!

Could Mrs. Rodham be unaware of the mass graves containing the bodies of thousands of Iraqi women and their children, documented by Fox News and others? Is she oblivious of reports showing that during Saddam's reign of terror, more than 200 women were beheaded and their families were forced to display their severed skulls on stakes in front of their homes? Hasn't the junior senator from New York heard of the thousands of women who were raped by members of Saddam's family and the Iraqi security services? How did she miss the photos and videotape of Iraqi women and girls who had been singled out for beatings and torture with hot branding?

But maybe those things don't matter to Clinton. In a speech to the Brookings Institute last week, she described Saddam as "an equal opportunity oppressor," and then went on to lament the heady days under his watch when Iraqi women "went to school, they participated in the professions, they participated in government and business." "And," this liberal champion of women's rights pointed out, "as long as (Iraqi women) stayed out of (Saddam's) way, they had considerable freedom of movement."

Mrs. Rodham went on to condemn the U.S.-lead coalition efforts to build democracy overnight in Iraq. But, she praised the United Nations' 12-year-long attempts to "nurture democratic movements" in the Balkans, something she defended as a "time-taking task." She failed to mention that the Balkan operation costs more than $1.5 billion per year.

The so-called mainstream media ignored Clinton's unconscionable defense of Saddam, her denunciation of U.S. efforts in Iraq and her praise for the U.N. Perhaps that's because there was another dictator in trouble who needed them more: Haitian tyrant, Jean Bertrand Aristide.

On Feb. 29, Aristide, who was restored to power by his friend Bill Clinton, decided he ought to get out of Port-Au-Prince before the people he had been repressing for 10 years dragged him out of his palace. The petty tyrant, whose mental stability has long been questioned, asked for, and received, security from U.S. Marines so that he could get to the capital city's airport and flee to Africa. Once safely there, Aristide called a press conference and claimed he was "kidnapped" at gunpoint and "forced to leave" Haiti. Resorting to hyperbole and dramatics, he went on to say that armed forces "came at night ... there were too many, I couldn't count them."

True to the axiom that no despot is too dirty for a liberal to defend, Sen. John Kerry, who called the U.S. military's rescue of 804 medical students off the island of Grenada "a bully's show of force," is now demanding a congressional investigation of Aristide's claims that he was taken against his will, at gunpoint, in the middle of the night and forced to go someplace he didn't want to go.

In fairness, presidential candidate Kerry admits: "I don't know the truth of it. I really don't," but he thinks "it needs to explored" because he has a "friend in Massachusetts who talked directly to people who have made that allegation." That ought to be enough evidence to launch a multimillion dollar congressional investigation.

Candidate Kerry is backed up by members of the Congressional Black Caucus, who are in high dudgeon that there is one less dictator in the world from whom they will receive party invitations. "I am especially concerned," said Rep. Maxine Waters, "by the possibility that the U.S. government may have armed and trained the former military officers and death squad leaders who carried out last Sunday's coup."

Those sentiments were echoed by none other than John Kerry's daughter. "I believe this administration just helped overthrow, basically overthrow, a democratically elected president," said Vanessa Kerry. "We basically, in our silence, allowed him to be deposed."

But we're to remain silent on Saddam?

Forget that it took days for Secretary of State Colin Powell to find Aristide a home, before the Central African Union reluctantly agreed to take him in. The dictator was in the country for less than a day before he had his phone privileges revoked and government officials were trying to ship him elsewhere. "He's already started to embarrass us," Minister Parfait Mbaye said of Aristide. "He's scarcely been here 24 hours and he's causing problems for Central African diplomacy."

But that doesn't stop liberals from coming to Aristide's support. Jesse Jackson went right to work to get Aristide on the phone with American reporters who would print his tale of woe. Though welcome mats are being pulled from under Aristide's feet all over the world, Jackson demands that the United States grant him asylum.

Former Rep. Ron Dellums, Haiti's representative in Washington, said his advice to the administration was, to "be part of a political solution," because Dellums alleges, "you guys (the United States) are the 800-pound gorilla." Interesting that Dellums would refer to his own country and own government as "you guys" instead of choosing to say, "we" or "us."

But that's the problem, isn't it? Liberals who support dictators like Castro, Hussein and Aristide don't see themselves as one of "us" when it comes to America. That's why they seem to like dictators more than democracy. Perhaps that's why so many of them clamored to have little Elian Gonzalez ripped from a relative's arms in Miami and shipped back to a dictator.

Link: here (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ollienorth/on20040305.shtml)

[steve]

Well, I consider myself liberal but the philosophy has nothing to do with propping up dictators.

The Bush family are practically butt buddies with the Saudi Royal Family.

now tell me...has the Saudi Arabian government been a paragon of human rights?

Furthermore, wasn't it Bill Clinton who used the bully pulpit of the US to force out bastards like Milosovic?

Shit. The Bush Sr. administration practically INSTALLED The Taliban and Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan.

It works both ways.

[John Ashcroft]

I'll let Lucky handle this light work.

[steve]

anyway, to expand on what I said...

Oli North holds Mikhail Gorbechev (MIKHAIL GORBECHEV!!!) - the man almost single-handedly responsible for ending the brutal dictatorship of the Soviet Union as a "brutal dictator"????

Is he smoking crack?

I really don't know where to begin.

Reagan certainly disagres with him - that's all I'll say.

Also, to fault Bill Clinton for engaging the Israel-Palistinian issue and presiding over diplomacy that resulted in almost no suicide bombings for the last 5 years of his presidency...

And to fault Hillary Clinton for making a statement that even President BUSH agrees with - that is, we must not let Islamic extremist dictatorship take over and oppress women in Iraq...which is happening to a small degree right now. Please, I am really f'in' confused. Explain how anyone is against this that isn't a wife-beating woman-opresser religious nutball?

like I said, he's making all these outrageous accusations with NOTHING to back it up with and I don't know where to begin.

So I'll keep it short and sweet...
Oli North is a moron. Although he was smart enough to make a career out of being a fall guy, I'll give him that . But the fact is he got a talk show merely because he is a celebrity - much like Magic Johnson. Coem to think of it, doesn't he have Sheena Easton on drums?

[Viking]

Originally posted by John Ashcroft:

I'll let Lucky handle this light work.

Heeheehahahahaha..........he hasn't shown up yet, but it'll be interesting. :D :D :D

[ELVIS]

He showed up.. he saw Steve's posts and vomited...

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by steve
Well, I consider myself liberal.

The Bush family are practically butt buddies with the Saudi Royal Family.


Explain your stance...

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by steve
Well, I consider myself liberal but the philosophy has nothing to do with propping up dictators.

The Bush family are practically butt buddies with the Saudi Royal Family.



As a liberal, you should have no problems with butt buddies, right? Hmmm? :p

[John Ashcroft]

Lucky's like a internet library for discrediting liberal spin. I really should benchmark more of his pages since they seem to be needed time and time again. If his stomach isn't well enough to punk this boy by tonight, I'll step up.

[steve]

Bush's Dirty Little Secret






Ever since the attacks of September 11th the Bush administration has been saying that America is under attack by terrorist bent on destroying our way of life. They attack us, Bush says, because they hate our freedoms. His administration continues to drum that message into the heads of the populous because it is scary and scared Americans don't like changing presidents.




But Al Qaeda isn't interested in attacking the United States to destroy our freedoms or way of life. They know very well that they can't bring down this country and have no desire to do so. The goal of Al Qaeda is to topple the Saudi royal family. And one way to do that is to scare away their friends, namely the US.




It is common knowledge that the Saudi royal family is composed of a bunch of despots who have absolute control over the people. They routinely torture not only their own citizens but foreigners as well. They subjugate women just like the Taliban and rule as ruthlessly as Saddam did. So why are we not attacking them? Why are we such big supporters of an awful regime?




It is no surprise that most of the highjackers of 9/11 were Saudis. They took their war against the Saudi royal family to the US to scare us into severing our ties with the regime. It didn't work and probably won't work. We are a nation dependent on oil and we need that Saudi oil or our economy, and our real way of life, collapses.




But this story goes deeper than just oil. It goes to the unusual close family relationship of the Bush family and the Saudi royal family including the Bin ladens. That's right; George W and the rest of the Bush family are very close personal friends of the Bin laden family. Just after the 9/11 attacks when all aircraft were ordered out of the skies, George W Bush allowed the Bin laden family to fly all over the country picking up other Bin ladens to whisk them out of the country. This administration blocked all efforts by the FBI to interview the family of the man responsible for murdering 3,000 of our citizens.




Bush Sr. has close financial ties to the Bin Laden family and has for many decades. The Bin ladens invested heavily in the Carlyle group. George Sr. sits on the board of this supposed think tank. What the Carlyle group does is help the Republican Party consolidate power in the US by consolidating power worldwide. The ties between the Bush Family, Saudis and the Bin ladens extend to many other financial deals. And don't think the Taliban leaders were left out of the power party - they were invited to the Crawford Texas Ranch back in the 1980s after the Soviets were long gone. Why would the Bush family invite the Taliban to dinner? Oil - that's why. The Bush family had financial interests in building an oil and gas pipline from the Caspian sea to the Meditteranean sea via Afghanistan. They didn't care about the policies of the Taliban then and George Bush dosen't give a damn about thier policies now. It's all about power and oil. How about those beans Sean Hannity. Explain that one away Bill O'Reilly!




When George W finally stopped cowering in some bunker on 9/11 and returned to Washington he had a visitor come to the White House to share in a stress-relieving cigar on the Truman balcony. That man was Prince Bandar of the Saudi family. The Prince and George W. are close friends - both in the oil business.




Why would the Bush family want such close ties to the Saudis? Well it is all about oil and power. In light of our nation's addiction to oil the Bush family is the equivilant of the world's biggest dope pusher. They know that control, or at least a good deal of influence, over the world's oil means power. To keep their feet wet in oil means they can influence the power structure in America by controlling he main source of energy used inthe world. Remember, there is still another Bush boy who wants to run for President. The Bush family wants to create a dynasty, to elevate their family above all others. To achieve this they must be in a position of power not only in the US - but the world. And that my friend is just what has happened.




Al Qaeda attacked us because men who have a radical interpretation of the Koran are leading the movement to return the Arabian peninsula back to it's medieval roots. We are the Saudis biggest supporters and for that we paid the price in 3,000 lives and will continue to pay that price. But the Bush family doesn't want us to think about that. They want us to believe that we, and our values, are under attack and thus we must be scared and fight the good fight against terrorism.

[steve]

http://www.capitolblog.com/archives/000163.html

[steve]

I would add to this article that I believe the Bush's cozy relations with the Saudi Royal Family leads not to an "either/or" proposition as to the roots of our war with Al Queda. There is a generation of conflict between the cultures on both sides - and there are also historical divides such as the crusades and the Jewish/Arab conflict. Plus, there is just general stuff like poverty and looking for a scapegoat (in this case the US) to blame one's internal problems on... as well as a class of secularism of the west and the rock of middle Eastern culture, Islam. Plus there is the whole culture of suicidal terrorism within fundamentalist Islam that everyone can agree is a major idea problem.

But the Bush family's cozy relations to the Saudis - a repressive dictatorship no different than the Taliban save it's economic savy and oil reserves - is a major conflict of interest in the war on terror no doubt.

[steve]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
As a liberal, you should have no problems with butt buddies, right? Hmmm? :p

No, no problems with it.

Just because you and John Ashcroft are riding the bologna pony together doesn't mean I have to. :D

[lucky wilbury]

where to start here. oh the softballs that have been lobbed. lets start with the saudis:

there are at least 10,000 princes in saudi arabia. some good some bad. some more liberal some not. so the notion that everyone is bad is that government is a joke besides the brits installed them but thats another topic. as far as bush sr knowing/ working with the "bin lades" obl had at least 56 brothers while his father had at least 11 wives most of them hate him and some have never meet obl. so the idea that anyone who knows or works with a bin laden is a joke since there are so many. hell there wre a ton of them living,working or going to school here in mass. is harvard bad because they were teaching them?

clinton and kosovo

clinotn didn't get rid of milosovic the population did it itself. they overthrew him not clinton. in fact clinton wanted the kosovo war to stop.it was covered in this thread amoung others:

http://www.rotharmy.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1569&highlight=clark

Some top Clinton administration officials wanted to end the Kosovo war abruptly in the summer of 1999, at almost any cost, because the presidential campaign of then-Vice President Al Gore was about to begin, former NATO commander Gen. Wesley K. Clark says in his official papers.

"There were those in the White House who said, 'Hey, look, you gotta finish the bombing before the Fourth of July weekend. That's the start of the next presidential campaign season, so stop it. It doesn't matter what you do, just turn it off. You don't have to win this thing, let it lie,' " Clark said in a January 2000 interview with NATO's official historian, four months before leaving the post of supreme allied commander Europe.


------

Bush Sr DID NOT install the taliban or bin laden. simple answer with this is the taliban took power in the mid 90's during clintons time. now how was bush sr involved in this? he wasen't as for the myth the cia and or regan/bush sr was involved with obl that is just one of the biggest loads of horseshit ever. for starters things in afghanistan in the 80's with respect to foriegn fighters were run by the pakistanis through the ISI. so in simple terms the ISI created the taliban and obl since they all were non afghans. the ISI in the mid 90's helped install and fund the taliban which is why in simple terms the afghans hate the pakistanis and the taliban. they know who helped prop them up. now we in the 70's and 80's dealt with the afgahns themselves. now it wasen't regans doings that set this up it was a directive from carter:

http://www.counterpunch.org/brzezinski.html

How Jimmy Carter and I Started the Mujahideen
Interview of Zbigniew Brzezinski Le Nouvel Observateur (France), Jan 15-21, 1998, p. 76*

Q: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

Brzezinski: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

Brzezinski: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic [integrisme], having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated: Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.

Brzezinski: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.

* There are at least two editions of this magazine; with the perhaps sole exception of the Library of Congress, the version sent to the United States is shorter than the French version, and the Brzezinski interview was not included in the shorter version.

The above has been translated from the French by Bill Blum author of the indispensible, "Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II" and "Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower" Portions of the books can be read at: <http://members.aol.com/superogue/homepage.htm>
--------------------------


so carter help setup everything with regards to the afghans and the pakistanis. obl and the taliban were handled by the ISI and we covered the afghans. here's a brief article on what happen:

http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/misc/janes011001_1_n.shtml

Vital intelligence on the Taliban may rest with its prime sponsor – Pakistan’s ISI

By Rahul Bedi in New Delhi

Pakistan’s sinister Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) remains the key to providing accurate information to the US-led alliance in its war against Osama bin Laden and his Taliban hosts in Afghanistan. Known as Pakistan’s ‘secret army’ and ‘invisible government’, its shadowy past is linked to political assassinations and the smuggling of narcotics as well as nuclear and missile components.

The ISI also openly backs the Taliban and fuels the 12-year-old insurgency in northern India’s disputed Kashmir province by ‘sponsoring’ Muslim militant groups and ministering its policy of ‘death by a thousand cuts’ that so effectively drove the Soviets out of Afghanistan and led to their political demise.

The goings on behind the ISI’s nondescript headquarters, located behind high walls on Khayban-e-Suharwady avenue in the heart of the capital Islamabad and its operational offices in the adjoining garrison town of Rawalpindi, have dominated Pakistan’s domestic, nuclear and foreign policies – especially those relating to Afghanistan – for over two decades.

The ISI chief, Lt Gen Mahmood Ahmed, who was visiting Washington when New York and the Pentagon were attacked, agreed to share desperately needed information about the Taliban with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and other US security officials. The CIA has well-established links with the ISI, having trained it in the 1980s to ‘run’ Afghan mujahideen (holy Muslim warriors), Islamic fundamentalists from Pakistan as well as Arab volunteers by providing them with arms and logistic support to evict the Soviet occupation of Kabul.

The ISI is presently the ‘eyes and ears’ of the US-led covert action to seize Bin Laden from the Taliban, since hundreds of its agents and their Pathan ‘assets’ continue to operate across Afghanistan. Its influence with the Taliban can be gauged from the inclusion of Gen Ahmed in the Pakistani military and diplomatic delegation to the militia’s religious capital, Kandhar, in southern Afghanistan in an attempt to defuse the looming military crisis. The Pakistani delegation appealed to the Taliban, albeit in vain, to hand over Bin Laden to the US, which holds him responsible for the 11 September attacks on the World Trade Center and Washington in which nearly 7000 people are feared to have died.

Founded soon after independence in 1948 to collect intelligence in Pakistan-controlled Kashmir and in East Pakistan (later Bangladesh), the ISI was modelled on Savak, the Iranian security agency, and like Savak was trained by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the SDECE, France’s external intelligence service. The 1979 Soviet occupation of Afghanistan led the CIA, smarting from its retreat from Vietnam, into enhancing the ISI's covert action capabilities by running mujahideen resistance groups against the Soviets in Afghanistan.

Former Pakistani president General Mohammad Zia-ul-Haq, who was ultimately assassinated along with his ISI chief, expanded the agency’s internal charter by tasking it with collecting information on local religious and political groups opposed to his military regime. Under Gen Zia the ISI’s Internal Political Division reportedly assassinated Shah Nawaz Bhutto, one of the two brothers of former Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto, by poisoning him on the French Riviera in 1985. The aim was to intimidate Miss Bhutto into not returning to Pakistan to direct the multi-party movement for the restoration of democracy, but Miss Bhutto refused to be cowed down and returned home, only to be toppled by the ISI soon after becoming prime minister in 1988.

The ISI is believed to have recently formed a secret task force under Gen Ahmed comprising Interior Minister Lt Gen (retd) Moinuddin Haider and Deputy Chief of Army Staff Lt Gen Muzaffar Usmani to ‘destroy’ major political parties and the separatist Mohajir Quami Movement (MQM) in southern Sindh province.

This task force has reportedly encouraged not only religious Islamic organisations such as the Jamaat-e-Islami (JeI) and Jamiat-ul-Ulema Islam (JuI) but also sectarian organisations such as the fundamentalist Sipah Sahaba and the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (which are closely linked to the Taliban and Bin Laden) to extend their activities to Sindh. These organisations are believed to have ‘slipped the ISI collar’ and begun recruiting unemployed Sindhi rural youth for the Taliban, posing a threat to Gen Musharraf's co-operation with Washington by formenting jihad against the West.

After the ignominious Soviet withdrawal from Kabul in 1989 the ISI, determined to achieve its aim of extending Pakistan's ‘strategic depth’ and creating an Islamic Caliphate by controlling Afghanistan and the Central Asian Republics, began sponsoring a little-known Pathan student movement in Kandhar that emerged as the Taliban. The ISI used funds from Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto's federal government and from overseas Islamic remittances to enrol graduates from thousands of madrassahs (Muslim seminaries) across Pakistan to bolster the Taliban (Islamic students), who were led by the reclusive Mullah Muhammad Omar. Thereafter, through a ruthless combination of bribing Afghanistan’s ruling tribal coalition (which was riven with internecine rivalry), guerrilla tactics and military support the ISI installed the Taliban regime in Kabul in 1996. It then helped to extend its control over 95 per cent of the war-torn country and bolster its military capabilities. The ISI is believed to have posted additional operatives in Afghanistan just before the 11 September attacks in the US.

Along with Osama bin Laden, intelligence sources say a number of other infamous names emerged from the 1980s ISI-CIA collaboration in Afghanistan. These included Mir Aimal Kansi, who assassinated two CIA officers outside their office in Langley, Virginia, in 1993, Ramzi Yousef and his accomplices involved in the New York World Trade Center bombing five years later as well as a host of powerful international narcotics smugglers.

Opium cultivation and heroin production in Pakistan’s northern tribal belt and neighbouring Afghanistan was also a vital offshoot of the ISI-CIA co-operation. It succeeded not only in turning Soviet troops into addicts, but also in boosting heroin sales in Europe and the US through an elaborate web of well-documented deceptions, transport networks, couriers and payoffs. This, in turn, offset the cost of the decade-long anti-Soviet ‘unholy war’ in Afghanistan.

"The heroin dollars contributed largely to bolstering the Pakistani economy, its nuclear programme and enabled the ISI to sponsor its covert operations in Afghanistan and northern India's disputed Kashmir state," according to an Indian intelligence officer. In the 1970s, the ISI had established a division to procure military nuclear and missile technology from abroad, particularly from China and North Korea. They also smuggled in critical nuclear components and know-how from Europe – activities known to the US but ones it chose to turn a blind eye to as Washington’s objective of ‘humiliating’ the Soviet bear remained incomplete.

A Director General, always an army officer of the rank of lieutenant general, heads the ISI, which is controlled by Pakistan’s Ministry of Defence and reports directly to the chief of army staff. As the current ISI chief, Gen Ahmed is assisted by three major generals heading the agency’s political, external and administrative divisions, which are divided broadly into eight sections:

* Joint Intelligence North: responsible for the Taliban in Afghanistan and the Kashmir insurgency. This section controls the Army of Islam that comprises Osama bin Laden’s Al-Qaeda group and Kashmiri militant groups like the Harkat-ul-Mujahideen (banned by the US last week), Lashkar-e-Toiba, Al Badr and Jaissh-e-Mohammad. Lt Gen Mohammad Aziz, presently commanding the Lahore Corps and a former ISI officer, reportedly heads the Army of Islam, which also controls all opium cultivation and heroin refining and smuggling from Pakistani and Afghan territory

* Joint Intelligence Bureau: responsible for open sources and human intelligence collection locally and abroad

* Joint Counter-Intelligence Bureau: tasked with counter-intelligence activities internally and abroad

* Joint Signals Intelligence Bureau: in-charge of all communications intelligence

* Joint Intelligence Miscellaneous: responsible for covert actions abroad, particularly those related to the clandestine procurement of nuclear and missile technologies

* Joint Intelligence X: looks after administration and accounts

* Joint Intelligence Technical: collects all technical intelligence other than communications intelligence for research and development of equipment

* The Special Wing: runs the Defence Services Intelligence Academy and liaises with foreign intelligence and security agencies.

"The concern now for General Musharraf is whether the ISI will remain loyal to him and provide the US with credible information or continue to pursue its aims of ensuing the Taliban’s continuance in Kabul," said one intelligence officer. The US, he added, will pull out of the region once its objectives have been achieved, but Afghanistan, with its incessant and seemingly irresolute turmoil, will remain Pakistan’s neighbour for good.


------------------


so just to sum up anything that dealt with foriegners in the afghan war in the 80's were handled by the pakistanis NOT us. so blame the taliban and and obl on them. although we can blame clinton for not helping out the afghan gov in the the mid 90's when they needed help form the attacking taliban but hats a whole other topinc

[steve]

posted by Lucky Wilbury...
there are at least 10,000 princes in saudi arabia. some good some bad. some more liberal some not. so the notion that everyone is bad is that government is a joke besides the brits installed them but thats another topic. as far as bush sr knowing/ working with the "bin lades" obl had at least 56 brothers while his father had at least 11 wives most of them hate him and some have never meet obl. so the idea that anyone who knows or works with a bin laden is a joke since there are so many. hell there wre a ton of them living,working or going to school here in mass. is harvard bad because they were teaching them?

Well...with regards to Harvard; two wrongs does not make a right - so it is kind of an irrelevant question.

Also, if a similar question was asked regarding Clinton supporting the Saudi government and royal family, it would still not make Bush Sr. and Bush Jr's administrations right for supporting their totalitarian regimes.

With regards to there being good eggs in the totalitarian dictatorship of the ruling Saudi Arabian Royal family - sure there are. But by the same token there were good eggs within the Nazi party in 1930s Germany. It does not change the rules that run the country. You are talking about a country that for two years after 911 would NOT crack down on terrorist funding - it was not until they were bombed themselves that they did anything to help us confront terrorism. It is a country that oppresses women and foreigners ruthlessly. It is a religious dictatorship no different than the Taliban save its propensity for dealing with its oil reserves efficiently. And Bush Sr. and Bush Jr's administrations have befriended that country more than any other US Presidential administrations. And when I say befriending the country - I am referring to the nation state; not simply individuals who happen to reside there. The Bushes, and for that matter Clinton to a lesser extent, in hindsight should not have and should not NOW support this repressive regime. It is changing somewhat - finally - but it does not change the fact that father and son and their administrations have GLEEFULLY supported a repressious society and dictatorship.

[lucky wilbury]

the current policy of supporting saudi arabia goes back decades. all admin have supported them although nixon did kick around the idea of attacking them. currently the saudi's are now going to allow for local elections at the end of this year or early next year. the oppresive part comes from the fact that mecca and medina are in their boarders and for them to make dramtic shifts in their way of doing things would allow the shit to hit the fan and mecca and medina would be used as an excuse. as far as funding goes most of the saudi money goes to charities which then funnels it to terrorists groups. the problem is charities and groups that are considerd terrorist groups by us like hamas aren't considered terrorist groups by other countries like france. they don't consider hamas and islamic jihad terror orgs and won't stop their funding. since alot of the money is sent through swiss and they won't trace it down what can you do. so even though we consider these charities,to which the saudi's donate money, front's for terror org's some countries don't and won't either a: help us stop it b: stop the countries from donating money there is little anyone can do.

[steve]

lucky Wilburry:clinton and kosovo clinotn didn't get rid of milosovic the population did it itself. they overthrew him not clinton. in fact clinton wanted the kosovo war to stop.Some top Clinton administration officials wanted to end the Kosovo war abruptly in the summer of 1999, at almost any cost, because the presidential campaign of then-Vice President Al Gore was about to begin, former NATO commander Gen. Wesley K. Clark says in his official papers. "There were those in the White House who said, 'Hey, look, you gotta finish the bombing before the Fourth of July weekend. That's the start of the next presidential campaign season, so stop it. It doesn't matter what you do, just turn it off. You don't have to win this thing, let it lie,' " Clark said in a January 2000 interview with NATO's official historian, four months before leaving the post of supreme allied commander Europe.

Responce:
The General Clark quote is interesting; and I have heard it and read it before. But it does not change the fact that Clinton himself spearheaded the United States leadership of Nato into the Kosovo conflict. now - you say that the people overthrew him, not Clinton - and this is technically true. But without the bully pulpit of the United States and the bombing cmapaign and sanctions against milosevic and pressure from our democratic allies in Nato, would they have done the same? Probably not - they would not have had the power to.

If you go back through news archives of any news at the time, it was easy to see that Clinton himself led the rhetorical war to end ethnic cleansing in that region - not the other members of NATO. This was a good thing.

Lastly, I remembered reading the article you are referencing (Clark's quote) and I attached it below.

Clark Papers Talk Politics And War
General Cites Pressure From Clinton Aides Over Kosovo Conflict

By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, February 7, 2004; Page A01

Some top Clinton administration officials wanted to end the Kosovo war abruptly in the summer of 1999, at almost any cost, because the presidential campaign of then-Vice President Al Gore was about to begin, former NATO commander Gen. Wesley K. Clark says in his official papers.


"There were those in the White House who said, 'Hey, look, you gotta finish the bombing before the Fourth of July weekend. That's the start of the next presidential campaign season, so stop it. It doesn't matter what you do, just turn it off. You don't have to win this thing, let it lie,' " Clark said in a January 2000 interview with NATO's official historian, four months before leaving the post of supreme allied commander Europe.
In his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, Clark has repeatedly made his conduct of the war a central theme, arguing that his leadership skills and experience in building coalitions with allies make him better suited for the White House than President Bush. He made the papers from his 34-month tenure as NATO's top military officer available in response to a request by The Washington Post.




The papers document that throughout the war, Clark was frequently at odds with top officials in the Clinton administration, including senior officers in the Pentagon, and that he was deeply skeptical that Washington was making good policy. "I know this region a whole lot better than a lot of these guys back in Washington do," Clark said in one private interview.

In describing White House pressure to end the war for political reasons, Clark did not name the officials involved or state how he knew about it. He described the pressures while detailing for the historical record the conflict's frenetic final months, when many in Washington openly worried it was dragging on too long and Clark was among a few officials urging escalating NATO's role in the war.

But on June 10, 1999, Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic -- under pressure from NATO's bombardment and Russia's withdrawal of political support -- capitulated to the West's demands for the pullout of all Serbian forces and the deployment of Western peacekeepers in Kosovo, a major and continuing NATO engagement.

That was the day Clark had privately identified as his deadline for formally recommending an escalation of the bombing campaign instead of launching a ground war involving tens of thousands of troops -- a plan he knew would give Washington pause, according to the papers. "Whether they would have fired me or not, I don't know, but it would have been pretty nasty," he told the NATO historian, according to an interview transcript in the National Defense University's special collections library in Washington.




No attempt by Clinton administration officials to manipulate the timing of the war's end was reported at the time. But this week, Clark confirmed through Jamie P. Rubin, a Clark campaign adviser who was a spokesman for then-Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright, that he stands by his account of the pressures.




Rubin added that Clark, who was campaigning in Tennessee, could not immediately recall further details of the episode.




Asked about Clark's account, Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger, the national security adviser to President Bill Clinton at the time, called Clark a friend but said any implication that the White House was prepared to hurry the end of the war for political reasons was "categorically and completely false."




"The White House was totally committed to victory in Kosovo, no matter how long it took or what it took," he said.




A former senior administration official, however, said Clark might have been referring to a Washington meeting of top policymakers in late spring at which Gore allegedly expressed concern that the war might interfere with his campaign. Gore formally announced his candidacy one week after the war ended, on June 16, 1999.




Gore, through a spokesman, declined to comment directly. Leon Feurth, his national security adviser at the time, said that politics were not discussed at White House national security meetings, and that while Gore opposed preparing for a ground war, he supported continuing the bombing as long as necessary to win. Gore "was prepared to take a political hit" on such issues, Feurth said.




In his papers, Clark made clear that he frequently urged a harder line than Washington and its allies preferred, accusing the Defense Department at one point of urging "a sellout" in 1998 negotiations over a plan to begin international monitoring of Serbian activities in Kosovo. Berger, Clark said, believed at the time that the risks posed by those actions were "not real" and favored a weak solution.




"That's the flavor of it. 'It's not like this is a really serious problem.' It's like, 'Hey, let's jerk this guy's [Milosevic's] chain.' [Then,] 'Okay, we can't stand [it] anymore, it's too embarrassing politically,' " Clark said, adding: "I don't take it that way. I take it as a very serious threat to European security."




"All along, I always had a terrible feeling about Milosevic, that we were really sort of making a compromise with Hitler in 1943," Clark said. He expressed particular regret that both Washington and Europe had failed to intervene against Yugoslavia in the summer of 1998, when, he said, Milosevic had timed a campaign of ethnic cleansing to coincide with Western officials' summer vacations.




Berger disputed Clark's account of his views, calling it "garbled hearsay that is just incorrect," because "I was a strong advocate of action on Kosovo."




Clark told the historian that he chafed during the war at having to submit individual bombing targets to the White House and the French government for approval. He said Clinton reviewed them directly, apparently because of embarrassment over the U.S. military's 1998 bombing of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan. He also quoted a deputy French defense minister as acknowledging that Paris rejected some of his target choices simply for the sake of "saying no."




Clark said his reaction was to ask for approval to bomb "more than you expect" to get.




He was scathing in his papers, as he was in a book he wrote in 2001 about the Pentagon's refusal toward the end of the war to endorse his use of Apache helicopters to attack Serbian ground forces. "The Army didn't want to be involved because they were afraid of being embarrassed or afraid of taking risks or whatever," Clark said. "The Navy didn't have a dog in the fight but [wasn't] too interested. And the Air Force, well, they would support me, but then they sent their henchmen down to make sure the [Apaches] would never fly."




Clark denigrated criticism of his plan as "all hype and [expletive]" and told the historian that even Clinton was unwilling to listen to his advice. During the president's visit to Brussels on May 5, 1999, "he's sitting next to me, and he says, 'Well, I guess the Apaches are too high-risk to use.' I said, 'No, Mr. President, they aren't.' Boy, he didn't want to hear that! He turned his head away . . . and that was the end of the discussion."




In early June 1999, after negotiations had finally begun to end the war, Clark told then-U.S. Ambassador to NATO Sandy Vershbow that "the Pentagon is pushing for any way out, pushing for a softer line, get us out, save money," according to a transcript of the telephone conversation in his papers.




"I think there was a lot of animus at the time," Clark later told the historian. "People knew I was fighting this thing [an early draft of the cease-fire agreement] . . . as it was being dragged to the conclusion, because I felt we were giving too much away. And what was coming from Washington was, get an agreement at any price."




The papers also shed new light on Clark's role in a notorious incident of rekindled East-West tensions immediately after a cease-fire agreement was reached with Yugoslavia. The episode involved a small contingent of Russian peacekeeping troops stationed in Bosnia outracing NATO forces in Macedonia to gain control over the main airport in Pristina.




Clark told aides at the time that he was worried the Russians would leverage their control to block NATO's deployment or demand a de facto partition of Kosovo. He also was concerned -- according to a transcript of his conversations during the crisis -- that the professed ignorance of Russian political officials about the move possibly meant that "we're dealing with a military takeover of the government in Russia."




He told NATO Secretary General Javier Solana that "Washington used the word 'coup' to me," but he made clear he could not confirm it.




Urged by senior U.S. officials to respond forcefully, Clark ordered British Gen. Mike Jackson, then under his command, to land British helicopters and station armored personnel carriers at the airport to block the Russians. The British general refused, saying he had no desire to start World War III.




Clark told the historian he was unperturbed by the unlikely prospect of a direct clash once the British forces pushed the Russian vehicles with their own. "Yes, they could shoot. When they shoot, we're gonna shoot. And guess what, there's a lot more of us than there are of them," Clark said, recounting his feelings at the time. "So my guess is, they're not gonna shoot!"




There was no coup, of course. And Jackson, with Clark's backing, defused the crisis by offering "to kill [the Russians] with niceness, welcome them aboard." The West forced Moscow to share the airport by prevailing on the Romanian and Bulgarian governments to block any air reinforcement or resupply of the Russian troops.




Clark's papers include a warm letter from William S. Cohen, the secretary of defense at the time, praising the general for his efforts during the crisis. But Cohen, who resented Clark's independent attitudes, forced him out of the job months before Clark intended to leave

[steve]

Originally posted by lucky wilbury
the current policy of supporting saudi arabia goes back decades. all admin have supported them although nixon did kick around the idea of attacking them. currently the saudi's are now going to allow for local elections at the end of this year or early next year. the oppresive part comes from the fact that mecca and medina are in their boarders and for them to make dramtic shifts in their way of doing things would allow the shit to hit the fan and mecca and medina would be used as an excuse. as far as funding goes most of the saudi money goes to charities which then funnels it to terrorists groups. the problem is charities and groups that are considerd terrorist groups by us like hamas aren't considered terrorist groups by other countries like france. they don't consider hamas and islamic jihad terror orgs and won't stop their funding. since alot of the money is sent through swiss and they won't trace it down what can you do. so even though we consider these charities,to which the saudi's donate money, front's for terror org's some countries don't and won't either a: help us stop it b: stop the countries from donating money there is little anyone can do.

This is all true - although not the part about kicking around the idea of attacking Saudi Arabia; not everyone at least.

What I object to in this thread is the idea that supporting dictatorships is a subset of the Democrat/liberal philosophy in the US. It is not - it has been every single Presidential administration. "Corruption" is not generally part of any philosophy, which is what a democracy propping up a repressive dictatorship is - corruption is an equal opportunity disease.

For instance, look what is happening now in Pakistan - the regime the bush administration befriended so readily four years ago is now looking awfully sucspicious with regards to government connections to Abdul Qadeer Khan and his network. And now...look. All Pakistan is doing is giving the guy a slap on the wrist!

We attack Iraq for harbouring those who spread weapons of mass destruction yet befriend in a roundabout way the real folks that are doing it! Our hipocracy goes on!

AP: Pakistan Knew of Nuclear Black Market
1 hour, 41 minutes ago

By GEORGE JAHN, Associated Press Writer

VIENNA, Austria - U.N. investigators are increasingly certain Pakistan government leaders knew the country's top atomic scientist was supplying other nations with nuclear technology and designs, particularly North Korea (news - web sites), diplomats told The Associated Press...
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=3&u=/ap/20040307/ap_on_re_as/nuclear_black_market_1

[steve]

[i]Bush Sr DID NOT install the taliban or bin laden. simple answer with this is the taliban took power in the mid 90's during clintons time. now how was bush sr involved in this? he wasen't as for the myth the cia and or regan/bush sr was involved with obl that is just one of the biggest loads of horseshit ever. for starters things in afghanistan in the 80's with respect to foriegn fighters were run by the pakistanis through the ISI. so in simple terms the ISI created the taliban and obl since they all were non afghans. the ISI in the mid 90's helped install and fund the taliban which is why in simple terms the afghans hate the pakistanis and the taliban. they know who helped prop them up. now we in the 70's and 80's dealt with the afgahns themselves. now it wasen't regans doings that set this up it was a directive from carter...[i/]

The helping of resistance of Soviet forces up till 88/89 was not a bad thing. So one cannot fault Carter, Reagan, or Bush for that in my opinion. however, Bush Sr. administration's policy of total disengagment from war-torn Afghanistan created a vacuum that led to the Taliban. now...does this mean the Bush administration is responsible for what the Taliban did? no. The Taliban was responsible. however, it was a MAJOR mistake to disengage.

Similarly, as things got out of control in the country, the Clinton administration could have done more to stabalize Afghanistan - but by the time Clinton was settled in office the situation there had already spiraled out of control. had Clinton launched military operations in 94 or 95 to rid Afghanistan of the Taliban he would have been SCEWERED by BOTH sides in this country. As it was, the Clinton admin. led economic sanctions against the Taliban and covert operations to get Bin Laden.

Similarly, Bush's first year was a policy of even FURTHER disengagment from te middle east - including Afghanistan and especially Israel Palestine as I mentioned above.

[FORD]

What agent Zimmerman fails to mention is that the ISI is a"proxy" for the CIA, and that they were directing the Mujahadeen under orders from Langley, which were relayed from the BCE, specifically then Vice President George Bush Sr.

[lucky wilbury]

Originally posted by steve
This is all true - although not the part about kicking around the idea of attacking Saudi Arabia; not everyone at least.

What I object to in this thread is the idea that supporting dictatorships is a subset of the Democrat/liberal philosophy in the US. It is not - it has been every single Presidential administration. "Corruption" is not generally part of any philosophy, which is what a democracy propping up a repressive dictatorship is - corruption is an equal opportunity disease.

For instance, look what is happening now in Pakistan - the regime the bush administration befriended so readily four years ago is now looking awfully sucspicious with regards to government connections to Abdul Qadeer Khan and his network. And now...look. All Pakistan is doing is giving the guy a slap on the wrist!

We attack Iraq for harbouring those who spread weapons of mass destruction yet befriend in a roundabout way the real folks that are doing it! Our hipocracy goes on!

AP: Pakistan Knew of Nuclear Black Market
1 hour, 41 minutes ago

By GEORGE JAHN, Associated Press Writer

VIENNA, Austria - U.N. investigators are increasingly certain Pakistan government leaders knew the country's top atomic scientist was supplying other nations with nuclear technology and designs, particularly North Korea (news - web sites), diplomats told The Associated Press...
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=3&u=/ap/20040307/ap_on_re_as/nuclear_black_market_1

the only problems with that is that pakistan was shopping the stuff around throught the 80's and 90's. they were even selling plans to iraq. most of it happen before mushariffs coup which was during clintons term. we cut a deal with them saying they can keep hands off kahn for letting us go into pakistan during "hot pursuits". we're already in pakistan on bases but not if the frontier. pakistan is still a democract to a point. they still have their elected parliment which has endorsed mushariff for the next five years.

[lucky wilbury]

Originally posted by steve
The helping of resistance of Soviet forces up till 88/89 was not a bad thing. So one cannot fault Carter, Reagan, or Bush for that in my opinion. however, Bush Sr. administration's policy of total disengagment from war-torn Afghanistan created a vacuum that led to the Taliban. now...does this mean the Bush administration is responsible for what the Taliban did? no. The Taliban was responsible. however, it was a MAJOR mistake to disengage.

Similarly, as things got out of control in the country, the Clinton administration could have done more to stabalize Afghanistan - but by the time Clinton was settled in office the situation there had already spiraled out of control. had Clinton launched military operations in 94 or 95 to rid Afghanistan of the Taliban he would have been SCEWERED by BOTH sides in this country. As it was, the Clinton admin. led economic sanctions against the Taliban and covert operations to get Bin Laden.

Similarly, Bush's first year was a policy of even FURTHER disengagment from te middle east - including Afghanistan and especially Israel Palestine as I mentioned above.

bush sr didn't leave a power vacum. he helped fund and rebuild afghanistan from 89-92. when clinton came into office he cut their aid over their opium crops. then when the now weakend afghan gov asked for help clinton said no. it was their policy to not intervene in interal affairs of a country because of their last time they took a non un active role in a countries affairs in somiliea. yes bush sent the troops in first but then they were pulled out by bush sr then clinton put them back in after peacekeepers were attacked and we all know the rest of the story. it would be ironic that years later his wife lead the efforts to increase aid to the taliban. the sanctions weer only put into place after the 98 bombigs of the us embassy

[steve]

Originally posted by lucky wilbury
bush sr didn't leave a power vacum. he helped fund and rebuild afghanistan from 89-92. when clinton came into office he cut their aid over their opium crops. then when the now weakend afghan gov asked for help clinton said no. it was their policy to not intervene in interal affairs of a country because of their last time they took a non un active role in a countries affairs in somiliea. yes bush sent the troops in first but then they were pulled out by bush sr then clinton put them back in after peacekeepers were attacked and we all know the rest of the story. it would be ironic that years later his wife lead the efforts to increase aid to the taliban. the sanctions weer only put into place after the 98 bombigs of the us embassy

? Bush Sr. funded aid to Afghanistan from 89 through 92?? I believe it's time for an ole' standbye:
"SHOW ME THE MONEY"

[lucky wilbury]

Originally posted by steve
? Bush Sr. funded aid to Afghanistan from 89 through 92?? I believe it's time for an ole' standbye:
"SHOW ME THE MONEY"

a quick search shows:

http://home.arcor.de/yadgar/92-05e.htm

may 1992

5/1 USA pledge Afghanistan 50 mill. $ reconstruction aid

http://www.hrw.org/reports/1993/WR93/Asw-01.htm

For fiscal year 1992, the U.S. requested $60 million for cross-border assistance and $6 million in food aid to be delivered to Afghanistan through the World Food Program. The administration also requested $20 million in aid for Afghan refugees in Pakistan and reconstruction of the Afghan countryside. On April 8, the U.S. announced that it would provide 10,000 metric tons of wheat for needy residents of the capital.

http://www.theodora.com/wfb1991/afghanistan/afghanistan_economy.html
Afghanistan Economy - 1991

Economic aid: US commitments, including Ex-Im (FY70-89), $322 million; Western (non-US) countries, ODA and OOF bilateral commitments (1970-88), $465 million; OPEC bilateral aid (1979-89), $57 million; Communist countries (1970-89), $4.1 billion

[John Ashcroft]

Lucky, you rule. Thanks again (I'm a little argued out lately).

I will say I laughed quite a bit at the absurd credit given to Gorby for the fall of the Soviet Union. Evidently Steve's been smoking a little more than the baloney pony lately.

Steve, I won't say that Clinton cozied up to every dictator that came down the pike, but I will say he ignored the ones funding terrorists and did absolutely nothing to stop terrorism on his watch. The funny thing with you libs, is you see the first trade center bombing as no big deal, and you see all of the military losses at the hands of terrorists as something that doesn't necessarily concern you (after all, you really don't like military men anyway). Bin Laden himself said he was emboldened by our lack-luster response to previous acts of terrorism, and our running with our tail between our legs from Somalia. Regardless of who you think created the dude, shouldn't something have been done to prevent his rise? And I'm talking about more than just a few cruise missles on the eve of a certain intern's testimony.

Anyway, tell me something. Why doesn't the American public trust the democrats with national defense? It's been a common theme in poll after poll since as long as I can remember. Are all Americans but you and you liberal friends stupid?

[steve]

http://www.hrw.org/reports/1993/WR93/Asw-01.htm

The Right to Monitor

"No known domestic human rights organizations were in place in Afghanistan at the end of 1992. The country was in such a state of chaos that even had such organizations been allowed to function by law, their ability to do so would have been limited by the severity of the fighting. By year's end, Asia Watch had received reports of arrests in Kabul of persons suspected of opposing the ruling council or elements of it, including Zia Nassery, a U.S. citizen of Afghan origin who was detained in October."


U.S. Policy

"Despite the substantial role the U.S. played in supporting the mujahidin throughout the war, the U.S. administration paid little attention to the crisis in Afghanistan after the April coup. Even Hekmatyar's brutal attack on Kabul in August, carried out with U.S.- and Saudi-financed weaponry, merited only a belated condemnation more than a month after it occurred."

...You cannot just cherry pick a statistic of wheat aid from a human rights website but ignore the overall points the report made. On Clinton's watch, small shipments of food aid were delivered to Afghanistan as well. That means jack, frankly.

I am willing to criticise Clinton. Why are you guys so kneejerk?

[steve]

john Ashcroft: ...I will say I laughed quite a bit at the absurd credit given to Gorby for the fall of the Soviet Union.

Well; go to the library or any bookstore. Read any historical account of the fall of communism. Read Ronald Reagan's memoirs and statements on Gorbechev. You have a lot of work to do because your account of the fall of communism in the Soviet Union conflicts with about 90% of historians.

[Wayne L.]

I think Democrats & Republicans from both political parties are dictators & egomaniacs of the worst kind which is why it doesn't matter who is in the White House from either party because all of them are bought & paid for by special interests groups from the left & the right who DON'T give a damn about you at all except during elections.

[steve]

by John Ashcroft: ...Steve, I won't say that Clinton cozied up to every dictator that came down the pike, but I will say he ignored the ones funding terrorists and did absolutely nothing to stop terrorism on his watch.[

I will use this post not to defend Clinton; but to point out the hipocracy in what you are saying - because Republicans cozy up to ruthless dictators as well...

From 1981 to 1991 my father was a civilian employee of the Air Force at the Department of Defense - he worked at the Pentagon as a weapons analyst. He is also a first generation Chaldean-American, his parents emmigrated from what is now Iraq during the great depression to America.

When I was a kid, I was kind of a news geek - I would wake up early every morning - 9 and 10 years old- to read the Washington Post. As a result, my father and I would talk about politics some.

He used to tell me - astonished, of how our government was supporting Saddam Hussein - a man who had gassed his own people and murdered countless others. I remember him watching the various news shows sometimes and getting a little bit ticked off - to say the least - at comments made by the Bush administration in the late 80s - particuarly after Saddam's gas attacks on Halabja , Iraq in 1988 in which 5,000 innocent civilians, 75% women and children, immediately perished.

Since he was a civilian employee, he wrote several letters to his congressmen on the issue - complaining of the US government's support of Saddam. At one time in 1990, he got to meet Dick Cheaney. It was only for a moment; it was sort of a mini-celebrity moment for a mid-level government worker like my dad. He recalls now that his daughter was with him. My dad said hello and very briefly and politely mentioned he was concerned about our support of Saddam Hussein - especially since most Chaldeans are actually from what is now nothern Iraq. He recalls that Mr. Cheaney looked bothered and just nodded his head.

Shortly after this, my father's phone line began being tapped at work. During a conversation about the weather and general news events, my father merely mentioned the name of a job he was working on (as in, yeah I am working on this "x" and it's taking me forever) - just in passing to another government employee friend of his. As anyone who has ever had security clearance knows, this is a technicality that can lose one their security clearance - which in the federal government is worse than getting fired. the problem is, government employees often accidentally slip up in this manner, but never get anything more than a slap on the wrist.

The next day my dad showed up for work but the codes had been changed on the door. After this, he pursued a case against the federal government for 2 years - resulting in nothing. He never worked a government job again and never found another job in his field. Information after that is irrelevant to this discussion and personal, but I will say I don't intend this to be a sob story and my family is doing ok now, almost 15 years later.

Now...
Do you mean to tell me that Republicans did not and do not cozy up to dictators as well? Are you really THAT thick-headed???

[ELVIS]

John never said such a thing...

[steve]

yeah he did. read three posts above. the reason teh "quote" function did not show up as it normally does is because I cut and pasted an exerpt of what he said -the particular thing that I wanted to respond to and typed [ QUOTE ] [ / QUOTE ] around it.

[knuckleboner]

gorbachev was instrumental in the fall of the soviet union. at the very least, it's hard to call him a "brutal authoritarians whose regimes have brought nothing but agony and cruelty to their people."

i challenge ANYONE to defend that statement.



as far as supporting dictators it's not a liberal/conservative or democratic/republican thing. the U.S., throughout the cold war, supported whoever it thought was supportive of us or capitalism, with much less regard to how those regimes treated their own citizens.

i won't pretend to play utopian idealist monday morning quarterback in this issue. was it better in the long run? did it help avoid a hot war with many more deaths? maybe. it's a complicated issue, and it very well might've.

but i think we can say that it was ALL sides who supported, at one time, dicators.


and speaking of supporting dicators...someone remind me, how exactly did ollie north get the funds to donate to the contras...?

[FORD]

Originally posted by knuckleboner



and speaking of supporting dicators...someone remind me, how exactly did ollie north get the funds to donate to the contras...?

Through the sales of Junior's favorite white powdery substance, if I recall.

[knuckleboner]

Originally posted by FORD
Through the sales of Junior's favorite white powdery substance, if I recall.

well, officially, it was weapon sales to iran. but i think that, in and of itself, is enough to question if ollie's 100% against supporting brutal dictators. unless he knew something nice about the ayatollah that we didn't...

[Mr Grimsdale]

icing sugar?

look for once and for all bring back hitler, at least he got the trains running on time

[John Ashcroft]

Holy shit batman! :eek: Look where this thread went while I was away! So, where to start, where to start... Well let's analyze this first:


Originally posted by steve
When I was a kid, I was kind of a news geek - I would wake up early every morning - 9 and 10 years old- to read the Washington Post. As a result, my father and I would talk about politics some.


This explains a lot. Branch out a little to other sources of news fella. Believe it or not, the mainstream press is pushing an agenda, and it ain't a conservative one.

OK, OK, just having a little fun. Let's get to the meat.


Also posted by steve
From 1981 to 1991 my father was a civilian employee of the Air Force at the Department of Defense - he worked at the Pentagon as a weapons analyst. He is also a first generation Chaldean-American, his parents emigrated from what is now Iraq during the great depression to America... He used to tell me - astonished, of how our government was supporting Saddam Hussein - a man who had gassed his own people and murdered countless others. I remember him watching the various news shows sometimes and getting a little bit ticked off - to say the least - at comments made by the Bush administration in the late 80s - particuarly after Saddam's gas attacks on Halabja , Iraq in 1988 in which 5,000 innocent civilians, 75% women and children, immediately perished.


And yet you're adamately against removing him from power. Interesting to say the least. Given your concern for all things Iraq, I'd have thought you'd be overjoyed by Saddam's demise and supportive of the administration responsible for it. I guess it'd been ok if it were a Democrat administration that removed him, right? And I'm the hypocrite??? :rolleyes:

But wait, there's more...


Oh, boy, here we go...

At one time in 1990, he got to meet Dick Cheney. It was only for a moment; it was sort of a mini-celebrity moment for a mid-level government worker like my dad. He recalls now that his daughter was with him. My dad said hello and very briefly and politely mentioned he was concerned about our support of Saddam Hussein - especially since most Chaldeans are actually from what is now nothern Iraq. He recalls that Mr. Cheaney looked bothered and just nodded his head.

Put the DU talking point book down junior, I ain't buying it. But let's suppose for a second it's true. Is this a personal vendetta because your daddy was slighted? Is that what's made you swear allegiance to the Democratic party? It is absolutely no surprise that the Secretary of Defense wouldn't want to talk policy with a low level federal civilian, it'd be a complete and total waste of everyone's time. You think he'd just say "I'll be damn Mr. such and such, I've never quite thought of it that way. And all this time, my intelligence folks have been telling me that Iran's the real threat! I guess it's back to the drawing board... Thanks a million!" Puhleeze. Oh, and I spent almost 10 years in the actual Air Force and met the Secretary of the AF twice. (Sheila Widnall). What a wonderfully inept bubble of ignorance she was (both times). I was at a luncheon to discuss Air Force issues with her and she was about as interested in it as Hillary Clinton's interested in men. She didn't even know our rank structure for Christ's sakes! And she was the civilian boss of the entire fucking Air Force. Her qualifications were "Doctorate of this and that" and (here's the kicker) "An avid aviation enthusiast". She had no clue what our force structure was, and that at least was in her job description. Anyway, I didn't take it personally, after all she was a FOB, and that's all the qualification she really needed. She was just making the rounds for face time and wasn't terribly interested in what we had to say (much like Cheney with your dad, I guarantee). But now, I'm sworn to the Republican party as part of my vengeance!... (Just kidding of course)


And now some paranoid delusions by steve

Shortly after this, my father's phone line began being tapped at work. During a conversation about the weather and general news events, my father merely mentioned the name of a job he was working on (as in, yeah I am working on this "x" and it's taking me forever) - just in passing to another government employee friend of his. As anyone who has ever had security clearance knows, this is a technicality that can lose one their security clearance - which in the federal government is worse than getting fired. the problem is, government employees often accidentally slip up in this manner, but never get anything more than a slap on the wrist..

See Ford or Pinky for your TFB.

And all this to make this particular point:


On to steve's original point (if there was one)

I will use this post not to defend Clinton; but to point out the hipocracy in what you are saying - because Republicans cozy up to ruthless dictators as well...

Wonderful job dude! Everyone now convinced? Anyone? Anyone? :confused:

Better luck next time, but keep up the good fight! '

Oh, and BTW, I've never said Republicans haven't made deals with the Devil. You just haven't been around long enough to see it. Sometimes deals with shady characters are necessary, just ask our intelligence community (remember, the one that Clinton and Kerry gutted an neutered, and the same one that couldn't "connect the dots" because of it?) Only a fool who lives in a dream world... Oh, wait a minute... That pretty much describes every American liberal! I'll be damned... Anyway, only a fool would believe it's never necessary to pick the lesser of two evils in life. I guess that's why the American public has put the adults back in charge of our security.

[Mr Grimsdale]

notice how mr ashcroft couldn't argue with my point
pretty good huh?

[John Ashcroft]

Which point was that? I'm an equal opportunity punker...

[knuckleboner]

Originally posted by John Ashcroft
Which point was that? I'm an equal opportunity punker...

it was my point on ollie supporting the ayatollah assahollah...;)

[John Ashcroft]

Oh great, now I'm confused...

Oh, and Ollie took one for the Gipper. Everyone knows this.

[knuckleboner]

Originally posted by John Ashcroft


Oh, and Ollie took one for the Gipper. Everyone knows this.


so you're saying it's "republicans and dicators?" ;)



(FYI: i like the gipper much more than i like oliver north...)

[John Ashcroft]

I'm saying that neither side of the aisle has a clean slate in this particular matter. But I'm also saying that Republicans seem to have no problem mopping up the messes they (and others) make. Dems seem to have a problem in this area. I mean, when you've got Jesse Jackson defending Saddam Hussein I don't believe he could be considered a member of the "human rights" party...

[steve]

Originally posted by John Ashcroft
Holy shit batman! :eek: Look where this thread went while I was away! So, where to start, where to start... Well let's analyze this first:



This explains a lot. Branch out a little to other sources of news fella. Believe it or not, the mainstream press is pushing an agenda, and it ain't a conservative one.

OK, OK, just having a little fun. Let's get to the meat.



And yet you're adamately against removing him from power. Interesting to say the least. Given your concern for all things Iraq, I'd have thought you'd be overjoyed by Saddam's demise and supportive of the administration responsible for it. I guess it'd been ok if it were a Democrat administration that removed him, right? And I'm the hypocrite??? :rolleyes:

But wait, there's more...



Put the DU talking point book down junior, I ain't buying it. But let's suppose for a second it's true. Is this a personal vendetta because your daddy was slighted? Is that what's made you swear allegiance to the Democratic party? It is absolutely no surprise that the Secretary of Defense wouldn't want to talk policy with a low level federal civilian, it'd be a complete and total waste of everyone's time. You think he'd just say "I'll be damn Mr. such and such, I've never quite thought of it that way. And all this time, my intelligence folks have been telling me that Iran's the real threat! I guess it's back to the drawing board... Thanks a million!" Puhleeze. Oh, and I spent almost 10 years in the actual Air Force and met the Secretary of the AF twice. (Sheila Widnall). What a wonderfully inept bubble of ignorance she was (both times). I was at a luncheon to discuss Air Force issues with her and she was about as interested in it as Hillary Clinton's interested in men. She didn't even know our rank structure for Christ's sakes! And she was the civilian boss of the entire fucking Air Force. Her qualifications were "Doctorate of this and that" and (here's the kicker) "An avid aviation enthusiast". She had no clue what our force structure was, and that at least was in her job description. Anyway, I didn't take it personally, after all she was a FOB, and that's all the qualification she really needed. She was just making the rounds for face time and wasn't terribly interested in what we had to say (much like Cheney with your dad, I guarantee). But now, I'm sworn to the Republican party as part of my vengeance!... (Just kidding of course)



See Ford or Pinky for your TFB.

And all this to make this particular point:



Wonderful job dude! Everyone now convinced? Anyone? Anyone? :confused:



With regards to the Post...I was a CHILD then. So I disagree with your assumption that I have not aged via some sort of oddly shaped Stephen Hawking diagram - damn dude, I was just trying to tell a story. :)

With regards to the rest of the story, you are filling in a LOT of blanks. I have never signed my "allegiance to the democratic party" - as you say, so just as you did not "align yourself with Republicans out of vengance over Wendall, stop presuming I have. Come on, I'm more complex than that, give me a little credit :)

Anyway...I go out on a limb here and tell one single REAL peice of information, and you're using irrelevant argument s (such as calling me "junior" and referring to my "daddy", "liberal Wash Post Reader" and saying "I worked in the real air force", etc.). Dude, if you don't buy it, just say you don't buy it. there's no point in arguing like that.

Those things listed above have nothing to do what we're talking about. You did get to your point in your post which is, you don't think Cheney would care about the thoughts of a mid-level employee. That's fine, but lighten up :).

With regards to that however, it's not like I haven't thought about that exact same thing for some time now (that Cheney would not bother with the thoughts of a lower level employee). It is just that I don't think it's the fairy tale you make it to be. After all, it was under Cheney's personal direction that we supplied Iraq with the chemical weapons they used on Iran (and later the Kurds). For some "low level nobody"(which is true, that's what he was, really), as you seem to think Cheney thought of my dad, to mention that in passing might have seemed quite insulting to him. And it was RIGHT after this converstion that his line was tapped - I have read the court documents on it.

Anyway, I said my piece. My little story is up there and I don't think it as far fetched as you think. After all, the US Government on Clinton's watch tried to KILL Wen Ho Lee for no good reason. Don't be naive' and think that Republicans like Cheney aren't playing a political power game as well.

[steve]

...anyway John - I was just trying to relay the story as plainly as I could above in the thread without inserting my opinions at every nook and cranny. It's a small little tale about a small little man, and frankly, for most of my adult life I was like you and doubted it. It took a lot of time to think of it in terms as I do now, those terms being basically that "who knows for sure", but it's not all that far fetched.

Even I have my doubts about it, but after letting it simmer for a long ass time, this is the conclusion I've come to; the reason being that, had the subject of the story had any political savy, it would have been very embarrassing for those in charge like Cheney for a defense department employee - even a low level nobody - to complain in public about the Bush admin's alignment with a murderous madman - Saddam Hussein. Add to that the subject's "credentials", if you will, of his ethnicity and this could have been trouble for the public image of the Bush admin's cozy relation to Hussein.

However, if you discretit the person by firing him, than his credentials become tainted.

To me, vast conspiracies are difficult at best to support based on that fact that we hummans are gossipers by habbit. The story I have related to you is a very simple one - guy gets fired wrongfully because he could have caused political trouble - is NOT a vast conspiracy.

I must point out though that you are right in that it was a roundabout way of addressing the point that the Reagan and Bush administrations cozied up to, supplied intelligence to, supplied weapons of mass destruction to ...Saddam Hussein. It was a damn roundabout way of addressing that point.

This thread is titled Democrats and Dictators. Cozying up to dictators is not reserved just for democrats, Republicans have been just as guilty of it. I would argue, far more so.

[John Ashcroft]

Actually, my point was never to state Dems are the only ones who "cozy" up to dictators. What I'm saying is that your party seems incapable of removing such dictators when the need arises. Your party used to pride itself in being concerned with human rights, and now it mourns the loss of Saddam Hussein??? This is the state of your party. It's so helplessly lost that they don't mind making hipocritical fools of themselves on a daily basis. Look at Kerry's flip flopping for Christ's sakes! You can't pin the idiot down on a single issue. He's against the Israeli wall and for it. He's for Yasser Arafat and against him. He's for tax cuts but against them. He's for a strong military but against it. He's for ousting Saddam, but against it. Dude, opinion poll leadership is not what this country needs given the threats we face (or used to, Dubya's taken care of a bunch of the terrorist scumbags. Don't believe me? So how many terrorist hits against American real estate have we had since 9/11?) Anyway, your entire party seems fine with taking up the human rights march, so long as it's the "right" administration doing it (kind of like the "right" people for tax relief, and the "right" people for talk radio, etc...)

Oh, and congrats on keeping cool. Good job! I was pushing some serious buttons to get a rise out of ya. I guess I'll have to try harder next time 'round...;)

[steve]

And I think Knucklboner put it best so far in this thread with his statement on " pretend[ing] to play utopian idealist monday morning quarterback in this issue. was it better in the long run? did it help avoid a hot war with many more deaths?".

That says a lot.

However, with the issue of Hussein, containment of Iran in the 80s, and the gassing of the Kurds...let us not forget that the Senate passed a resolution (led by Al Gore) for economic and political sanctions against Iraq after Saddam gassed the Kurds. the Bush administration rejected that proposal however. So on this particular issue, I would argue that the Bush admin's cozy relationship with Saddam superceded even contemporary ideals of the time. If you look back, Saddam's gassing of the Kurds and the Bush admin's suppor to his governent was a very hot topic for (unfortunately too short of a time) that the Bush admin wished to go away.

To this day we will NEVER see a public trial of Saddam Hussein because it will go something like this:

Saddam on witness stand:
"i am a bad guy. i have done wrong. But the US enabled me. They gave me the chemical weapons and authorized me to use them onthe Iranians."

So while I many ethical questions regarding alliances can often be a question of hindsight being 20/20, the case of the Bush admin's relationship with Saddam was not.

[John Ashcroft]

Come now dude, it's not all our fault. Say it with me... America is gooooood.... America is gooooood... Now that wasn't so hard, was it?

And KB's da man for sure. But I'd bet he's gonna vote for Bush this November. He's what I like to call a "Closet Conservative", which is entirely understandable in his line of work.

[steve]

Originally posted by John Ashcroft
Actually, my point was never to state Dems are the only ones who "cozy" up to dictators. What I'm saying is that your party seems incapable of removing such dictators when the need arises. Your party used to pride itself in being concerned with human rights, and now it mourns the loss of Saddam Hussein??? This is the state of your party. It's so helplessly lost that they don't mind making hipocritical fools of themselves on a daily basis. Look at Kerry's flip flopping for Christ's sakes! You can't pin the idiot down on a single issue. He's against the Israeli wall and for it. He's for Yasser Arafat and against him. He's for tax cuts but against them. He's for a strong military but against it. He's for ousting Saddam, but against it. Dude, opinion poll leadership is not what this country needs given the threats we face (or used to, Dubya's taken care of a bunch of the terrorist scumbags. Don't believe me? So how many terrorist hits against American real estate have we had since 9/11?) Anyway, your entire party seems fine with taking up the human rights march, so long as it's the "right" administration doing it (kind of like the "right" people for tax relief, and the "right" people for talk radio, etc...)

Oh, and congrats on keeping cool. Good job! I was pushing some serious buttons to get a rise out of ya. I guess I'll have to try harder next time 'round...;)

No biggie, man. It's all about just chillin' out and being full of oneself and always thinking said self is right - like me :).

Anyway, with regards to Democrats not removing dictators, I still disagree with you...

Franklin Roosevelt; HELLO?!

But you've got a point with Kerry - while I am presonally inclined to take up the position that the NY Times did in its editorial backing Kerry (where they said that "where others see a waffler, we see a thinker debating complex issues" - something to that extent), I realize that he's got to change his ways, and fast (ironically :)). That is, he's got to not go into his "thinking out loud" personality. While I kind of see an inherient honesty in it (as in, nobdy knows everything and issues are more complex than George Bush's answers), it's definitely his political liability.

[John Ashcroft]

Ah, I'm glad you brought up Roosevelt...

Yep, he was a great one for sure. Almost an icon in your party. So, did he "lower" himself by using the war in his campaign for reelection? Evidently Dubya's not allowed to do that, so I'm wondering what gives?

[steve]

Originally posted by John Ashcroft
Come now dude, it's not all our fault. Say it with me... America is gooooood.... America is gooooood... Now that wasn't so hard, was it?

And KB's da man for sure. But I'd bet he's gonna vote for Bush this November. He's what I like to call a "Closet Conservative", which is entirely understandable in his line of work.

hmmm...
America the "concept" is good. However, even under the best of circumstances, power corrupts. Orwell's 1984 said as much if not more about human nature/human politics than anything ever written IMHO.

I would say this...
"in the shitsea that is human politics throughout recorded history, America has been the best large-scale aproximation at moving in the right direction" endquote.

So don't put me and the other critics in a wooden crate with the Tazmanian Devil and mail me to Iran just yet - because their political leadership sucks WAY worse than we suck. We suck less than others. Oh...save Great Britain - I like their politcal system better. But they have bad teeth.

[John Ashcroft]

I wonder if their various colonies (past and present) around the world feel that Great Britain's system is "all that and a bag of chips"?

Are you saying a monarchy is the answer?

But not all's bad! We at least agree the limey bastards have, let's say a "less than stellar" dental hygiene...

[FORD]

Originally posted by John Ashcroft
Ah, I'm glad you brought up Roosevelt...

Yep, he was a great one for sure. Almost an icon in your party. So, did he "lower" himself by using the war in his campaign for reelection? Evidently Dubya's not allowed to do that, so I'm wondering what gives?


Circumstances were a bit different. FDR was leading a war against Adolf Hitler's Third Reich and the Emperor of Japan. Two real life entities who were fighting a real war against real armies.

Not a vague abstract like the indefineable "terrorist" or a made up "Axis of Evil". And the guy who supposedly committed PERLE Harbor (911) remains at large.

[John Ashcroft]

Originally posted by FORD
Circumstances were a bit different. FDR was leading a war against Adolf Hitler's Third Reich and the Emperor of Japan. Two real life entities who were fighting a real war against real armies.

Not a vague abstract like the indefineable "terrorist" or a made up "Axis of Evil". And the guy who supposedly committed PERLE Harbor (911) remains at large.

Wrong answer. In case you've forgotten, we had two big buildings leveled and the Pentagon smashed a bit, played right on live TV. Reasonable people realize that terrorism is at least as serious a threat as Hitler's army, and a harder one to combat. You see, your party's labeling of the War on Terrorism as not "a real war" is backfiring on you. People don't buy it. Yeah, your liberal friends all have your back, but the hard left only accounts for about 20% of the voting public (oh, and that number is shrinking on a daily basis). See resent election results for confirmation. I also wonder if the soldiers fighting terrorism around the world share you assessment of the war. Another little hint for you, the don't. They overwhelmingly support President Bush, I promise you. So don't even waste our time with the one or two stories of dissent in the military. It's really quite a desparate joke.

And on to this:


Originally posted by steve
hmmm...
America the "concept" is good. However, even under the best of circumstances, power corrupts. Orwell's 1984 said as much if not more about human nature/human politics than anything ever written IMHO.

I would say this...
"in the shitsea that is human politics throughout recorded history, America has been the best large-scale aproximation at moving in the right direction" endquote.

So don't put me and the other critics in a wooden crate with the Tazmanian Devil and mail me to Iran just yet - because their political leadership sucks WAY worse than we suck. We suck less than others. Oh...save Great Britain - I like their politcal system better. But they have bad teeth.

Any comments from my Conservative friends on this?

I guess if we "suck" the least, we're doing ok. After all, all anyone can ask for is to "suck" less than your peers (unless you're a porn star that is...)

[knuckleboner]

Originally posted by John Ashcroft
I'm saying that neither side of the aisle has a clean slate in this particular matter. But I'm also saying that Republicans seem to have no problem mopping up the messes they (and others) make. Dems seem to have a problem in this area. I mean, when you've got Jesse Jackson defending Saddam Hussein I don't believe he could be considered a member of the "human rights" party...

heh heh. i know. i was pushing buttons as well...


but as for defending saddam hussein, i haven't really seen any mainstream democrats actually defend him. arguing against the pre-emptive strike is not necessarily the same thing.


though, i'll give you, that many of the democrats don't have a vision for iraq's NOW. whether we should've gone to war or not is over and done. simply saying, "we were wrong, let's pick up stakes and head out" is stupidity.

[John Ashcroft]

And remember the joint resolution of Congress urging President Clinton to remove Saddam by force?

The Dems and Republicans overwhelmingly supported the removal of Saddam (and the Dems in the Senate were the ones who authored it). Interesting that you had a Democratic President who was loathed by Republicans, yet when it came time to do the right thing for our country politics were set aside to do so. You aren't finding that now, that's for sure (with some minor acceptions like Lieberman and Miller).