Democrats and dictators

[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???

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???

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...