# Bhutto



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Political assassination is nothing new.Nor is it unique or endemic to any particular ethnic group or political experiment.And the shocked condemnations of other leaders while doing quick calculations for the next move have all the trappings of a hallmark card from the appropriate section of the aisle. What bothers me is the numbing acceptance by people claiming to aspire to something better. My former employer, Afghan Zabillula Nasiri once said I was being naieve about Mushareff. He said his part of the world needed such leaders. A few minutes later he noticed the customer's Saab he drove to a party the night before sporting a large dent. He summoned me over and tried to claim I was the last person to drive it the previous Thursday. I collected my pay that afternoon and never went back. Such is the leadership of Mushareff. I hope the last thing in his head, before his bullet, is the realisation he was nothing new, or better either.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

This is really bad. I don't know how reliable he is on this point, but Christopher Hitchens has an interesting article about this in today's Slate: https://www.slate.com/id/2180952/
Among other things he says that she pursued a pro-Taliban/Qaeda policy when she was PM, but had recently come to see that such a policy was not in the best interests of her country. Unfortunately, it seems likely that they are the ones that killed her.


----------



## Bishop of Briggs (Sep 7, 2007)

jackmccullough said:


> This is really bad. I don't know how reliable he is on this point, but Christopher Hitchens has an interesting article about this in today's Slate: https://www.slate.com/id/2180952/
> Among other things he says that she pursued a pro-Taliban/Qaeda policy when she was PM, but had recently come to see that such a policy was not in the best interests of her country. Unfortunately, it seems likely that they are the ones that killed her.


Are you sure? The military rulers had reason to kill her too. The British army, currently trying to sort out the mess in Afghanistan, should expand its activities to fighting the Taliban in Pakistan.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

It doesn't really matter who killed her. The irish poet Kavanagh wrote of a farmer's argument and commented it was the stuff ancient cattle raiding epics were made of. Two tribes killing over a grove of pistachio trees, a nation, no differnece.


----------



## radix023 (May 3, 2007)

Not to put too fine a point on it, but with nuclear weapons and Osama bin Laden (in all likelihood), we have to care who did it. The US plan for replacing Musharraf with Bhutto is dead. Musharraf has a new lease on power, but his ride could be ending.

in the short term Musharraf will be supported.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

radix023 said:


> Not to put too fine a point on it, but with nuclear weapons and Osama bin Laden (in all likelihood), we have to care who did it. The US plan for replacing Musharraf with Bhutto is dead. Musharraf has a new lease on power, but his ride could be ending.
> 
> in the short term Musharraf will be supported.


Bush has spent six years insisting he's going to go after any country that harbors terrorists.

The principle mastermind and financier of 911 (Ayman al-Zawahiri and Osama bin Laden), as well as the Taliban leader (Mullah Omar) are all in Pakistan, and still controlling large areas of that country.

Six years later and we're still waiting for Mr. Bush to keep his promise, instead of invading and occupying Iraq, threatening Iran and other countries that had absolutely nothing to do with 911.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Bush has spent six years insisting he's going to go after any country that harbors terrorists.
> 
> The principle mastermind and financier of 911 (Ayman al-Zawahiri and Osama bin Laden), as well as the Taliban leader (Mullah Omar) are all in Pakistan, and still controlling large areas of that country.
> 
> Six years later and we're still waiting for Mr. Bush to keep his promise, instead of invading and occupying Iraq, threatening Iran and other countries that had absolutely nothing to do with 911.


The government of Pakistan is not harboring the terrorist. How fragile the Pakistan government is, and with all those nukes and terrorist. What we should do and hindsight to come, now nobody knows.

We want a democratic government there, but not a Putin, or terrorist, or some other nut/s taking over.


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

I understand Bhutto's obvious desire to return, but sadly these events are not a surprise at all. Her death may be a trigger event that will lead to the collapse of the Musharraf government, however we do have to worry about destabilization there.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Bush has spent six years insisting he's going to go after any country that harbors terrorists.
> 
> The principle mastermind and financier of 911 (Ayman al-Zawahiri and Osama bin Laden), as well as the Taliban leader (Mullah Omar) are all in Pakistan, and still controlling large areas of that country.
> 
> Six years later and we're still waiting for Mr. Bush to keep his promise, instead of invading and occupying Iraq, threatening Iran and other countries that had absolutely nothing to do with 911.


So this assassination is a chance to attack Bush. In'effing-credible. Frank you are either a troll of the first order or, in all seriousness, need some help of a clinical nature. I have never in my life seen perseveration like this, including the poor souls I see in our gero-psych ward (dementia and perseveration go hand in hand).


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> So this assassination is a chance to attack Bush. In'effing-credible. Frank you are either a troll of the first order or, in all seriousness, need some help of a clinical nature. I have never in my life seen perseveration like this, including the poor souls I see in our gero-psych ward (dementia and perseveration go hand in hand).


Good God, Wayfarer, just imagine if she were Catholic?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

yachtie said:


> Good God, Wayfarer, just imagine if she were Catholic?


Or *gasp*....Mormon :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

There is a gross difference between actively harbouring a terrorist, as the taliban did with osama, and a country with large areas popularly known as 'Bandit Country.' The Pakistan-Afghan border is a very geographically rugged land little changed from Kipling or even Alexander. The devastating earthquake in Pakistan and what coverage we had shows an even more remote area. I 'd say given the instability of Pakistan since the military coup, tribal loyalties embracing both nations and smuggling routes that again go back to Kipling and Alexander We are lucky our very embassy is safe. Wait, we lost a Marine there years ago, remember? Bush bashing is so easy, and I dare say enough past supporters melted into the crowd and yelled even louder are just as culpable for his failures. But Bush hardly invented 'the White man's Burden' or the legacies, good and bad of british colonialism, or even the cutting off of the great silk route between an emerging Europe post Marco Polo and China by an emergent Islam. Frank, you'r like some driver in a perpetual state of road rage against one bad driver. The danger lies in your inability to see even more dangerous drivers coming up behin..................


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Kav said:


> There is a gross difference between actively harbouring a terrorist, as the taliban did with osama, and a country with large areas popularly known as 'Bandit Country.' The Pakistan-Afghan border is a very geographically rugged land little changed from Kipling or even Alexander. The devastating earthquake in Pakistan and what coverage we had shows an even more remote area. I 'd say given the instability of Pakistan since the military coup, tribal loyalties embracing both nations and smuggling routes that again go back to Kipling and Alexander We are lucky our very embassy is safe. Wait, we lost a Marine there years ago, remember? Bush bashing is so easy, and I dare say enough past supporters melted into the crowd and yelled even louder are just as culpable for his failures. But Bush hardly invented 'the White man's Burden' or the legacies, good and bad of british colonialism, or even the cutting off of the great silk route between an emerging Europe post Marco Polo and China by an emergent Islam. Frank, you'r like some driver in a perpetual state of road rage against one bad driver. The danger lies in your inability to see even more dangerous drivers coming up behin..................


At the time Bush invaded Iraq he claimed Saddam Hussein was in possession of WMDs, and posed an imminent threat to our national security (that latter claim is the only way his invasion would have been legal under UN/international law).

He lied and/or was simply incorrect on both accounts.

And now you're claiming the effort to find those who ALREADY HAVE attacked us should take a back seat to find "even more dangerous drivers coming up behind", people who MIGHT attack us. Maybe. Someday.

Good God almighty, is there any limit to your ignorance or gullibility?


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Uh, let me be direct. I was comparing President Bush to your Bad driver. Good gollly Miss Molley, you sure like to Ball.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Kav said:


> Uh, let me be direct. I was comparing President Bush to your Bad driver. Good gollly Miss Molley, you sure like to Ball.


Hard to read when in a state of rage, I guess.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> At the time Bush invaded Iraq he claimed Saddam Hussein was in possession of WMDs, and posed an imminent threat to our national security (that latter claim is the only way his invasion would have been legal under UN/international law).
> 
> He lied and/or was simply incorrect on both accounts.
> 
> ...


An honest man will say more than what you are saying. Was Bush the only one saying "Saddam Hussein was in possession of WMDs" back then? And even before Bush entered the scene? Are you going to vote for Hillary? She was trying to get Bill to take out Saddam when he was president. Probably half the UN claimed Saddam Hussein was in possession of WMDs.

Why I felt sorry for those living under Saddams thumb my thoughts were are we able to be of any help? Iran is more of a threat then and now. Bush should have pursued these to the end - Ayman al-Zawahiri and Osama bin Laden, as well as the whole Taliban.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

"I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone already knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." 
-- Alan Greenspan

"We're not allowed to talk about oil."
-- Dick Cheney (response to Alan Greenspan)

NO MORE BLOOD FOR OIL.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Frank, Your replies are about as fresh as the camp kitchen beans scene in Blazing Saddles. The thread is about Bhutto, the last heir to a political family dynasty, probable killers if not beneficiaries of her death and the political ramifications. This is a matter of interest since the post colonial days and partition with India. Shrub wasn't even a seed, so how can you make him the central player in this ? I'll let Olmert comment. Perhaps he can give you a geography lesson. *Hint* Pakistan is the green coloured country on the map between a real purty yellow and blue one. No, not Texas


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone already knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."
> -- Alan Greenspan
> 
> "We're not allowed to talk about oil."
> ...


As reported: [Greenspan] said that in his discussions with President Bush and Vice President Cheney, "I have never heard them basically say, 'We've got to protect the oil supplies of the world,' but that would have been my motive." Greenspan said that he made his economic argument to White House officials and that one lower-level official, whom he declined to identify, told him, "Well, unfortunately, we can't talk about oil."

Google makes it harder to lie these days, Frank.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Mike Petrik said:


> As reported: [Greenspan] said that in his discussions with President Bush and Vice President Cheney, "I have never heard them basically say, 'We've got to protect the oil supplies of the world,' but that would have been my motive." Greenspan said that he made his economic argument to White House officials and that one lower-level official, whom he declined to identify, told him, "Well, unfortunately, we can't talk about oil."
> 
> Google makes it harder to lie these days, Frank.


You omitted the final part of that paragraph, Mike:

"Asked if he had made his point to Cheney specifically, Greenspan said yes, then added, "I talked to everybody about that."

We'll wait patiently while you explain who told the "lower-level official" he wasn't allowed to talk about oil.

Like I said, astonishing levels of ignorance and gullibility here.


----------



## omairp (Aug 21, 2006)

*Reporting Live from Rawlapindi*

I'm currently at my house in Rawalpindi safe and sound. I have a home in a pretty quiet suburb, so there's nothing much going on here.

I was out and about at a wedding when the blast happened that claimed Benazir's life. Everyone's first reaction was to hurry back to the shelter of home, causing massive traffic jams and gridlock. First there were reports on the radio Benazir escaped, then that she was injured, then that she was dead. Murree road (a major traffic artery in Rawalpindi) has seen rioting, looting, and numerous buildings set on fire as retaliation from Benazir supporters. There has been widespread destruction in Karachi, a Benazir stronghold which reported numerous train stations and stores, and even a hospital burned to the ground. There are accusations from the military that agent provoceteuers from India and from the Taliban are behind some of the senseless destruction of critical infrastructure.

The government is doing all it can to ground people and quell the rioting, all major markets, stores, and offices have been shut down for 3 days in an attempt to keep people indoors. They have also shut down all gas stations so to try and make it impossible for people to get around. I suspect the government is afraid to declare a state of emergency and deploy the army for fear this will further provoke anti-government anger as already people have attacked PML-Q headquarters (the PML-Q party is closely affiliated with Musharraf, and many people are alleging their involvement.)

TV stations are running 24 hour tributes to Benazir and showing live footage from funeral processions across the country. We've all been staying indoors and watching it unfold on TV. Another procession is supposed to be going on right now. Hopefully after a day or two the furor will die down and things can start to return to normal as the clean-up commences. Rumours are swirling here that the Taliban has taken responsiblity for this, but I cannot vouch for this because I've heard no reliable source of information confirm this.

When I came here, I knew there was going to be some uncertainty surrounding elections, but I don't think anyone suspected this. Even people who didn't support Benazir are mourning her death. I personally never particularly liked her because of her checkered history and accusations of corruption, but this is a tragic turn of events for all of Pakistan. International flights are still operating, although all flights/trains/buses inside Pakistan have come to a halt at least temporarily. I have a few more days here before my departure.

But now we just have to wait and see what the future holds for Pakistan,
Omair


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> You omitted the final part of that paragraph, Mike:
> 
> "Asked if he had made his point to Cheney specifically, Greenspan said yes, then added, "I talked to everybody about that."
> 
> ...


Frank, I have no idea who made the statement to the lower level official, or even if one was actually made, and neither do you. And even if it was made, I don't know what it means, and neither do you. It in no way proves that the war was about oil. It is an ambiguous statement that can support all manner of interpretations. Moreover, the fact that Greenspan shared his views with Cheney does not shed light on Cheney's views. So the additional quote adds absolutely nothing to context, and the fact remains that your quotation of Cheney was a simple fabrication. Period. Full stop.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Omairp, the forums prayers go to you and Pakistan. Come back to Canada safe so we can argue again.


----------



## obiwan (Feb 2, 2007)

The ignore feature on this forum is truly an asset :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Mike Petrik said:


> Frank, I have no idea who made the statement to the lower level official, or even if one was actually made, and neither do you. And even if it was made, I don't know what it means, and neither do you. It in no way proves that the war was about oil. It is an ambiguous statement that can support all manner of interpretations. Moreover, the fact that Greenspan shared his views with Cheney does not shed light on Cheney's views. So the additional quote adds absolutely nothing to context, and the fact remains that your quotation of Cheney was a simple fabrication. Period. Full stop.


Mike:

You must realize that if Frank and reality ever collide, the occurance is purely random. Frank's hatred of Dubya, Cheney, Mormons, Catholics...kittens, teddy bears...knows no bounds. I could go on in my warning, but some things we have to experience for ourselves to believe them.

Cheers!


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Mike Petrik said:


> Frank, I have no idea who made the statement to the lower level official, or even if one was actually made, and neither do you. And even if it was made, I don't know what it means, and neither do you. It in no way proves that the war was about oil. It is an ambiguous statement that can support all manner of interpretations. Moreover, the fact that Greenspan shared his views with Cheney does not shed light on Cheney's views. So the additional quote adds absolutely nothing to context, and the fact remains that your quotation of Cheney was a simple fabrication. Period. Full stop.


Like I said. Astonishing ignorance.

How about a quote from one of Bush's main foreign policy advisors (and one of the chief architects of the Iraq invasion), Paul Wolfowitz:

"Let's look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that, economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil."

But no amount of evidence will suffice for people who are intent on remaining blind. Your conscience cannot be hidden, and I pray for your eternal soul when you'll be required to defend the mass slaughter of tens of thousands of people who died to protect Halliburton's profit margins.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Your conscience cannot be hidden, and I pray for your eternal soul when you'll be required to defend the mass slaughter of tens of thousands of people who died to protect Halliburton's profit margins.


I know I am going to hate myself for asking this, but why would Mike's eternal soul (if there is such a thing), need to defend against this charge? Further, why does FrankDC, who lives in the same society, reaps whatever hypothetical benefits Mike does from the War, not have to defend? Just good living? :teacha:


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> I know I am going to hate myself for asking this, but why would Mike's eternal soul (if there is such a thing), need to defend against this charge? Further, why does FrankDC, who lives in the same society, reaps whatever hypothetical benefits Mike does from the War, not have to defend? Just good living? :teacha:


I follow the dictates of my own conscience, and speak out against mass murder and Bush's/Cheney's relentless abuses of power and office.


----------



## Leather man (Mar 11, 2007)

Frank's original point was to the point so to speak. I am amused or more likely saddened that anytime someone on this forum brings up an anti-Bush point - and it is usually Frank, he is rounded upon! And those who bay for facts and demand accuracy never use facts when attacking Frank's points - just ridicule. Very weak in my opinion.

Franks' view, whether most of you who are against what he is saying realise it or not, is the view of most of the rest of the world. And what he is saying is that Bush with the help of Tony Blair ignored the real problem and went for Iraq - for whatever reasons - but it certainly was not the reasons given at the time - thus all the suspicion and conjecture. I think by the way we can take Greenspan's comments to mean it was about oil.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone already knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."
> -- Alan Greenspan
> 
> "We're not allowed to talk about oil."
> ...


I watched Alan Greenspan on C-Span or KCTS explain what he meant with that sentence you quote above, which you and many others have completely misunderstood. Saddam was seriously considered a threat to the transportation of oil in the region near him.

Frank the only good reason why you come here is because here you read from resources that are way different then the closed minded rubish you read elswhere. I don't know why you believe the closed minded rubish so much.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

WA said:


> I watched Alan Greenspan on C-Span or KCTS explain what he meant with that sentence you quote above, which you and many others have completely misunderstood. Saddam was seriously considered a threat to the transportation of oil in the region near him.
> 
> Frank the only good reason why you come here is because here you read from resources that are way different then the closed minded rubish you read elswhere. I don't know why you believe the closed minded rubish so much.


WA, this forum is the only place I've found, anywhere in our printed media or on the internet, where people still claim Bush's invasion was about something other than oil.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> WA, this forum is the only place I've found, anywhere in our printed media or on the internet, where people still claim Bush's invasion was about something other than oil.


I have been around people who frame, slander, etc. and some of the main media is part of it. Hearing it from the horses mouth is correct way of getting truth, and, be sure not to believe what anybody else says. So many people will tell us anything so that we believe what they want us to believe, and truth has nothing to do with these people- in other words they are cons. And, from one region to another the cons can be vastly different. Cons always want something at your expense. I was watching Henry Kissinger on Charly Rose one time about an aritcle he wrote for a major NY paper. The paper deleted part of what Kissinger had written so it looked like Kissinger believed something else and was for something else, therefore misleading those that believe the printed page. The paper is second or third party and you cannot believe what you read even though somebodies name is asigned to have written that aritcle. If you get a letter directly from somebody- that is believeable, otherwise it may be tampered with.

The left media has convince by far most people in America that they (the left media) are moderate, so, many people respond as though the media is moderate. Another problem is the left media never really tell you what conservatives are (believe), but they make it sound like they are telling you the turth about conservatives, therefore they have con-ed many. Many people believe they understand the consevatives, but what they don't understand is they believe the propaganda of the left about the right. Listening to people who quote the propagana thinking they understand the right is embarrassing to them, but they don't know it, because they are so deceived.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

WA said:


> I The left media has convince by far most people in America that they (the left media) are moderate, so, many people respond as though the media is moderate. Another problem is the left media never really tell you what conservatives are (believe), but they make it sound like they are telling you the turth about conservatives, therefore they have con-ed many. Many people believe they understand the consevatives, but what they don't understand is they believe the propaganda of the left about the right. Listening to people who quote the propagana thinking they understand the right is embarrassing to them, but they don't know it, because they are so deceived.


I think this is really a bunch of horse hockey. The far left and far right sources seem to X each other out, and we're left with a mainstream media that's pretty much representative of what the middle believes. The liberal media conspiracy is a straw man for Right wing pundits to stroke their listening base and make money for their advertisers...and not much more.

-spence


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

I do not have firm or entrenched views on the Bush Administration or Iraq. I do have a firm view on liars though.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Spence said:


> I think this is really a bunch of horse hockey. The far left and far right sources seem to X each other out, and we're left with a mainstream media that's pretty much representative of what the middle believes. The liberal media conspiracy is a straw man for Right wing pundits to stroke their listening base and make money for their advertisers...and not much more.
> 
> -spence


Spence, you are very naive if you believe that. The lefty bias of US major media outlets is well-documented by academics, including those that lean left. Take an hour and do a little research. That said, this proposition does not have to be a straw man for right wing pundits to use it to stroke their listening base and make money for advertisers. The fact that the proposition is true just makes this use easier.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Mike Petrik said:


> Spence, you are very naive if you believe that. The lefty bias of US major media outlets is well-documented by academics, including those that lean left. Take an hour and do a little research. That said, this proposition does not have to be a straw man for right wing pundits to use it to stroke their listening base and make money for advertisers. The fact that the proposition is true just makes this use easier.


I've been doing my own research for years 

Seriously, I think it's a bunch of hooey.

It does depend on how you define left wing bias though. A lot of media coverage that's deemed to have that "liberal feeling", is simply reporting that tries to express a viewpoint that's not as familiar or less comfortable for the American viewer. Report on the plight of Palestinian children would be tagged left wing while a report on the success of US troops in Iraq would be tagged to the right. In reality neither may be actually biased but could easily be percieve as so.

And yes, the "Liberal Media" is a device used by most of the top Righty pundits for some time. This isn't to say that loud voices on the Left don't do the same, but cherry picked bits and pieces used to discredit the messenger because it's easier than killing the message is the easy way out. It takes less thought and it would seem that many people really don't like to think all that much.

-spence


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Spence said:


> I've been doing my own research for years
> 
> Seriously, I think it's a bunch of hooey.
> 
> ...


The real easy way out is to watch and read the MSM, whose "reporting" is prepared for 6th grade comprehension levels (and yes, sadly, that very much includes the gray lady). Scholarly journals are superior sources, as are dozens of Interet sites of various specializations and political persuasions. The MSM are a joke, only in part because they are biased.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Leather man said:


> Frank's original point was to the point so to speak. I am amused or more likely saddened that anytime someone on this forum brings up an anti-Bush point - and it is usually Frank, he is rounded upon! *And those who bay for facts and demand accuracy never use facts when attacking Frank's points - just ridicule. Very weak in my opinion.*
> 
> Franks' view, whether most of you who are against what he is saying realise it or not, is the view of most of the rest of the world. And what he is saying is that Bush with the help of Tony Blair ignored the real problem and went for Iraq - for whatever reasons - but it certainly was not the reasons given at the time - thus all the suspicion and conjecture. I think by the way we can take Greenspan's comments to mean it was about oil.


Not weak at all. You are just more inclined to put up with his rigid, morally superior, self-righteous hatred of all things Bush. I am not. If he wants to constantly include with his "facts" a heaping side of bile, then don't be too surprised if some are disgusted by it. :idea:


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

*Spence* If you were right how come the media of which you speak of never tell of what the conservatives do that is positive? Not only that they scandlelize what they consider good acts of the left, in other words more praise than they deserve or false praise.

If you listen to Katie (CBS news) everything she says about consevatives that sounds good also has been set up to leave a bad taste, so to say, in the mouth, whereas, liberal is shinning.

Your few years of research does not have much history and I could write a volumes of books that go back to the mid 70's about what you don't understand.

The media is very crafty and has rewritten for the gullible the history, because they got things to hide. If you do some real research you will see the tiger has not changed it's stripes for spots.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

About this time of year a group releases the 10 top censored stories of the year. Yes, our media succumbs to pressure from many sources and fails to uphold it's role in a free society. If you want an idea of our 'journalist's' bent just read it.


----------



## Leather man (Mar 11, 2007)

KenR - I don't know whether Frank has a "hatred of all things Bush". You seem to imply that Franks anti Bush views are irrational. I haven't keenly read all Frank's postings but have thought he was given the irrational "scream in your face" treatment on other threads by pro-Bush people. 

All I know is that on this thread I couldn't believe how over the top some response were to his, IMO quite reasonably expressed point of view. 

If Frank is violently anti Catholic or Mormon or anti the world then maybe Frank has issues. On the other hand surely we can express an alternative point of view without being labelled a "liar" or a "twister of news stories" - my opinon having followed the links is that those quotes from Alan Greenspan depends how you read them but Franks analysis is valid. I am a committed Christian and if Frank wants to have an attack on Christianity he can be my guest and we can talk about it - I for one will not go after him like a "dog after a hare" like some do on these threads just because he doesn't tow the conservative line.

From an English point of view your attacks on Frank's politics looks like typical neo-Con American politics - I am not saying it is, ( I don't know your minds) but I am telling you - that is how it looks!


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

*No Fun To Be Had With DPRK*

I expect I am going to regret getting involved in this thread, but I cannot resist pointing out that there are other important differences between North Korea and Iraq that I hope Mr. Wolfowitz appreciates: 

The DPRK could give us five hundred casualties a week on an ongoing basis with no difficulty at all.

PRC would no more allow us to seize control of the entire Korea peninsula today any more than they would in 1950.
The US Army and the USMC are currently stretched to the breaking point. Getting into a scrap right now with DPRK (or Persia, for that matter) would be a real bad deal for us.


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

On a totally non-political note, I think assassinations should be reserved for ugly old men.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Leather man said:


> Frank's original point was to the point so to speak. I am amused or more likely saddened that anytime someone on this forum brings up an anti-Bush point - and it is usually Frank, he is rounded upon! And those who bay for facts and demand accuracy never use facts when attacking Frank's points - just ridicule. Very weak in my opinion.
> 
> Franks' view, whether most of you who are against what he is saying realise it or not, is the view of most of the rest of the world. And what he is saying is that Bush with the help of Tony Blair ignored the real problem and went for Iraq - for whatever reasons - but it certainly was not the reasons given at the time - thus all the suspicion and conjecture. I think by the way we can take Greenspan's comments to mean it was about oil.


You miss the point Mr. Sock. This is a thread about the death of Bhutto. The point is Frank used it as a chance to bash Bush. Rather off topic, no?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Leather man said:


> K
> From an English point of view your attacks on Frank's politics looks like* typical neo-Con American politics *- I am not saying it is, ( I don't know your minds) but I am telling you - that is how it looks!


Good thing I am not American then, eh Mr. Sock?


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Wayfarer, I hope your sitting down. The New World is collectively known as 'The Americas.' From Tierra Del Fuego to Churchill we is all americans. If you ever take US citizenship you will be a canadian-american-american. If I took out canadian citizenship, I would be a american- canadian- american. I'd continue, but am already mixed up.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Good thing I am not American then, eh Mr. Sock?


Why do you have to remind us of this on a monthly basis? 

-spence


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

WA said:


> *Spence* If you were right how come the media of which you speak of never tell of what the conservatives do that is positive? Not only that they scandlelize what they consider good acts of the left, in other words more praise than they deserve or false praise.


I see positive news all the time that conservative people have influenced, it's just not labeled as such...

Reminds me of all the bitching about how we're really doing better in Iraq, but the MSM won't cover it...complete BS. I saw a lot of coverage on the good things we were doing in the MSM, it was just eclipsed by things America cared about more...like dead troops or our real progress not jibing with what others were reporting.



> If you listen to Katie (CBS news) everything she says about consevatives that sounds good also has been set up to leave a bad taste, so to say, in the mouth, whereas, liberal is shinning.


And how are her ratings?



> Your few years of research does not have much history and I could write a volumes of books that go back to the mid 70's about what you don't understand.
> 
> The media is very crafty and has rewritten for the gullible the history, because they got things to hide. If you do some real research you will see the tiger has not changed it's stripes for spots.


History is rewritten all the time, and always not by the Media! You don't think corporate interests or the spoils of the victor don't influence what history "is"?

Again...I think there is plenty of manipulation to go around, but the notion of a "Liberal Media" spinning things to manipulate Americans is BS. There are so many influences on what we read and hear...

-spence


----------



## omairp (Aug 21, 2006)

*Update From Rawalpindi*



Kav said:


> Omairp, the forums prayers go to you and Pakistan. Come back to Canada safe so we can argue again.


Indeed. :icon_smile_big:

Shortly after the assassination there was a press release on state-ran news network PTV claiming that a South Waziristan tribal leader loosely affiliated with Al-Qaeda and the Taliban by the name of Baitullah Mehsud had ordered the assassination. The government claimed to have intercepted a "smoking gun confession" phone call where he congratulated another unidentified militant on a job well done referring to the bomb blast.

The next day, independent media outlets on the internet started reporting that representatives of Baitullah Mehsud issued vehement denials of their involvement. They also claim to have sent emmissaries to the family of Bhutto to personally inform them they had no involvement in the bomb blast or the assassination attempt in Karachi in October. Unfortunately there are few independent media outlets left within Pakistan as many of them have been censored or shut down by the government. This denial struck the few people who heard it as very strange because typically these tribal leaders are in a hurry to take credit for their attacks, and show no regrets about the results.

Shortly afterwards, Benazir Bhutto's aides and party representatives said that they were convinced Baitullah Mehsud had *NO INVOLVEMENT* in the assassination, and that elements in the government were behind the assassination and attempting to frame Baitullah Mehsud. Unfortunately, this message has not been carried very far at all here in Pakistan except as rumours among party loyalists.

The Guardian (London based left leaning newspaper) reported that before Bhutto returned to Pakistan she prepared several letters to be read in the event of her demise. One was an e-mail to CNN presenter Wolf Blitzer saying that if she were to die, she would hold General Musharraf responsible for not providing her with proper security. As well she said she submitted a list of people to Musharraf of four people in the government she was convinced were plotting against her including a member of the ISI (a Pakistani intelligence agency), a member of Punjab's Provincial government, another person involved in the long running corruption investigation against her, and another person. The names have not been made public at this point, as far as I know.

As well, aides have said she left a letter with her son to be read in the event of her death, but I suspect the government will do everything they can to prevent people here from hearing the message if and when it comes out. There seems to be a complete black-out on any independent news here at the moment, and I'm only gleaning whatever info I can from the internet right now.

The government has announced two inquiries into Bhutto's death, one lead by a government picked loyalist judge, and another lead by the ISI (which is accused of being involved in her death.) Already people are scoffing at these plans, and the government has rejected calls for any international investigation.

As well this morning there was a suicide bombing in a small town in Eastern Punjab in a failed attempt to assassinate a senior PML-Q party member as apparent retaliation for the death of Benazir.

Yesterday there were more riots here in Rawalpindi as people threw stones at police and police returned fire with tear gas. Last night as I was going to sleep, I heard what sounded like either very loud firecrackers or gunfire in the distance. Since people aren't in the celebrating mood at the moment, I suspect it was the latter. As well reports are coming in that masked gunmen opened fire on a crowd of mourners returning from Benazir's tomb in Larkana to Karachi a few days back.

That's all for now,
Omair


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> You miss the point Mr. Sock. This is a thread about the death of Bhutto. The point is Frank used it as a chance to bash Bush. Rather off topic, no?


I was responding to someone who said, "Because of Pakistan's nukes and (possibly) Osama bin Laden, we have to care who did it."

The logical question to ask in response to that claim is, "Why, 6+ years after 911, do we still need to worry about Osama bin Laden?" If the correct answer qualifies as "Bush bashing" in your brain, you'll just have to deal with it. Bush is either not trying to find the mastermind and chief financier of the 911 attacks, or he's completely incompetent in his methods and strategy. Your choice.


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

*Is This a Retraction?*

https://www.guardian.co.uk/corrections/story/0,3604,971436,00.html


----------



## Flashy (Mar 15, 2006)

Omairp, thanks for your on-scene reporting. Stay safe while you're in Pakistan.
It would be great if the rest of this thread could focus on the events in question rather than devolving into the usual second-grade baiting.

I've spent a bit of time in the part of the world, long enough to know, the first half dozen or so answers to any question are never the truth. If you do get to the truth, its much deeper than you imagined. Benazir Bhutto had many many enemies, and there's a good chance we'll never know who was responsible. And to be honest, it really doe not do any good to know. If AQ/Taliban is responsible, well, we're not going to cross the Khyber and invade the NWFP over this. If it was someone in the government--with or without Musharraf's concent--we're not going to pull our support for the goverment. Either option would pose an unacceptable risk of unbalancing a fairly delicate situation in a nuclear power.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Spence said:


> Why do you have to remind us of this on a monthly basis?
> 
> -spence


Because people keep making comments like the one I was responding to. If I was you Spence, being American, I would feel insulted at what the poster I was responding to said, not worried that I pointed out his argument was inherently flawed, as his perceived insult was of course, definitionally impossible. If I was you, I would be offended that the term "typical American..." is being used as an insult.


----------



## Jolly Roger (Apr 26, 2007)

Omair, thanks for your reports. Stay safe while you're there.

Will Dalrymple had an interesting piece on Bhutto in the Guardian (UK) today:
https://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2233334,00.html


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Spence said:


> I see positive news all the time that conservative people have influenced, it's just not labeled as such...
> 
> -spence


Before C-Span it was difficult to find what the Republicans were doing because the news media outright lied. For example, Reagan told the news media to say what he said and no tainting or he would go to the radio, well the news media totally lied so Reagan did his radio Fireside Chats, or whatever he called them. Another example, if you read what the news media said Jerry Falwell wrote in his letters and then read the real letters you will see almost no connection. The list goes on and on.

What has changed is the conservatives have finally got ways to communicate that wasn't available in the past. C-Span, Internet, Radio and Fox News. But, still on the 3 big TV News companies (ABC, CBS and NBC) the conservatives are not getting equal and positive coverage. The reporting is better, but only because they can't get away with cheating so much any more, but if they could again they would, because they are still cheating wherever and however they think they can.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

WA said:


> Before C-Span it was difficult to find what the Republicans were doing because the news media outright lied. For example, Reagan told the news media to say what he said and no tainting or he would go to the radio, well the news media totally lied so Reagan did his radio Fireside Chats, or whatever he called them. Another example, if you read what the news media said Jerry Falwell wrote in his letters and then read the real letters you will see almost no connection. The list goes on and on.
> 
> What has changed is the conservatives have finally got ways to communicate that wasn't available in the past. C-Span, Internet, Radio and Fox News. But, still on the 3 big TV News companies (ABC, CBS and NBC) the conservatives are not getting equal and positive coverage. The reporting is better, but only because they can't get away with cheating so much any more, but if they could again they would, because they are still cheating wherever and however they think they can.


Good grief, it must be hell living in such a tiny box all the time.

The fact is, the American people are rarely if ever allowed to see true liberals in their media. Instead, for "the left" we're given Eleanor Clift and Alan Colmes! Meanwhile, socialism is by far the predominant form of government on planet Earth, and has been for the last 100 years. Americans are kept abysmally ignorant and absolutely oblivious to the world around them. It's the main reason for the rise of the Fourth Reich (Neoconservatism) in this country.

Still, 20 million Americans listen to Rush Limbaugh. 280 million Americans do not. We are not and never have been a particularly conservative country, at least socially.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Frank,

The Neo Cons are now foisting the Fourth Reich upon the US? Really? At least try and be subtle with your anti-Semitism.

I do agree that Americans are woefully ignorant about the rest of the world but I do have to wonder how much of the of world you have experienced if you don't understand that the rest of the world is ten times more ignorant about us.

Karl


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Karl89 said:


> Frank,
> 
> The Neo Cons are now foisting the Fourth Reich upon the US? Really? At least try and be subtle with your anti-Semitism.


Who said anything about Semites? Last I checked the Third Reich (the obvious comparison here) was anything but Semitic.



Karl89 said:


> I do agree that Americans are woefully ignorant about the rest of the world but I do have to wonder how much of the of world you have experienced if you don't understand that the rest of the world is ten times more ignorant about us.


Give me a break. Simple travel for U.S. citizens is a life threatening proposition now in many parts of the world, thanks to Mr. Bush. His presidency has been catastrophic for U.S. influence and prestige, and security.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Frank,

Its true your analysis is often more muddled than clever but even someone like you can understand the danger of comparing the Neo Cons to the Nazis -if you can't why not asking leading Neo Con Paul Wolfowitz, who lost much of his family in the Holocaust.

Karl


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Karl89 said:


> Frank,
> 
> Its true your analysis is often more muddled than clever but even someone like you can understand the danger of comparing the Neo Cons to the Nazis -if you can't why not asking leading Neo Con Paul Wolfowitz, who lost much of his family in the Holocaust.
> 
> Karl


In my view Karl, the Third Reich has nothing on the Neocons. E.g. simply read any of the executive orders from Bush in the last six years, or at just about any legislation passed by the last two congresses.

This isn't America, it's pre-war Germany.

I will admit this: the headlong plunge into totalitarianism is not limited to the Republican Party. E.g. read up on HR 1955, proposed by Jane Harman (D) of California and passed by 404 members of the Democratic House. Read it carefully, it's the foundation for the final destruction of America.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Frank,

So now the Neo Cons are worse than the Nazis and even Democrats are plotting America's destruction?

Saving the most idiotic posts for the end of the year, huh Frank?

I hope 2008 finds you committed to being less of a troll or addressing your mental health issues.

Karl


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Karl89 said:


> Frank,
> 
> So now the Neo Cons are worse than the Nazis and even Democrats are plotting America's destruction?


As bad, and yes.

I hope 2008 finds America waking up to what's going on in their government and in the world around them. After reading HR 1955 I'm voting for Ron Paul, if by some miracle he gets the Republican (or Independent) nomination.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> In my view Karl, the Third Reich has nothing on the Neocons. E.g.* simply read any of the executive orders from Bush* in the last six years...This isn't America, it's pre-war Germany.


Any EO huh?

Executive Order: Strengthening Adult Education 
https://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/09/20070927-11.html

Executive Order: National Mathematics Advisory Panel 
https://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/04/20060418-5.html

Executive Order: Service-Disabled Veterans Executive Order 
https://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/10/20041021-5.html

Yeah, the fascist bastard!


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Good 'ol Wayfarer: King of selective editing.

Why don't you post the list in its entirety?

And now we'll get into a multipage flame fest over pathetic semantics.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Good 'ol Wayfarer: King of selective editing.
> 
> Why don't you post the list in its entirety?
> 
> And now we'll get into a multipage flame fest over pathetic semantics.


There was no selective editing. You made a statement that said "any". Why not in entirety? Because you engaged in egregious hyperbole and now realize it, hence your comment on semantics. I nailed you on a silly statement. No multipage flame fest for me, anyone can see your words and know I just made you eat crow.

Why not make reasonable and modulated statements? It would make it harder for me to harpoon you on such a regular basis, but it might foster intelligent conversation. My only conclusion is that you do not desire honest and forthright debate, you are happy just to Dubya bash and toss bombs.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> There was no selective editing. You made a statement that said "any". Why not in entirety?


We know why not. Because Bush's executive orders read like something out of pre-war Germany.

If you want a taste of your own medicine, here's a far more representative "sample":

2007 
Oct. 19 Executive Order: Blocking Property and Prohibiting Certain Transactions Related to Burma 
Sept. 28 Executive Order: Further 2007 Amendments to the Manual for Courts Martial, United States 
Aug. 13 Executive Order: Amending the Order of Succession in the Department of Homeland Security 
Aug. 2 Executive Order: Blocking Property of Persons Undermining the Sovereignty of Lebanon or Its Democratic Processes and Institutions 
Jul. 20 Executive Order: Interpretation of the Geneva Conventions Common Article 3 as Applied to a Program of Detention and Interrogation Operated by the Central Intelligence Agency 
Jul. 17 Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq 
Jun. 29 Executive Order: Further Amending Executive Order 13381, as Amended, to Extend Its Duration by One Year 
May 17 Executive Order: National Security Professional Development 
May 9 Executive Order: Establishment of Temporary Organization to Facilitate United States Government Assistance for Transition in Iraq 
Apr. 18 Executive Order: 2007 Amendments to the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States 
Feb. 14 Executive Order Trial of Alien Unlawful Enemy Combatants by Military Commission 
Dec. 5 Executive Order: Strengthening Surface Transportation Security 
Oct. 31 Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo 
Oct. 13 Executive Order: Blocking Property of and Prohibiting Transactions with the Government of Sudan 
Jun. 29 Executive Order Amending Executive Order 13381, as Amended, to Extend Its Duration by One Year 
Jun. 26 Executive Order: Public Alert and Warning System 
Jun. 19 Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Belarus 
Jun. 7 Executive Order: Task Force on New Americans 
May 12 Executive Order: Amendments to Executive Orders 11030, 13279, 13339, 13381, and 13389, and Revocation of Executive Order 13011 
Apr. 27 Executive Order: Blocking Property of Persons in Connection with the Conflict in Sudan's Darfur Region 
Apr. 26 Executive Order Blocking Property of Additional Persons in Connection with the National Emergency with Respect to Syria 
Mar. 7 Executive Order: Responsibilities of the Department of Homeland Security with Respect to Faith-Based and Community Initiatives 
Feb. 8 Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in Côte D'Ivoire 
2005 
Dec. 22 Executive Order: Providing An Order of Succession Within the Department of Defense 
Nov. 23 Executive Order: Blocking Property of Additional Persons Undermining Democratic Process or Institutions in Zimbabwe 
Oct. 25 Executive Order: Further Strengthening the Sharing of Terrorism Information
Oct. 14 Executive Order: 2005 Amendments to the Manual for Courts Martial, United States 
Sept. 30 Executive Order: Continuance of Certain Federal Advisory Committees and Amendments to and Revocation of Other Executive Orders 
Jul. 15 Executive Order: Amending Executive Orders 12139 and 12949 in Light of Establishment of the Office of Director of National Intelligence 
Jun. 29 Executive Order: Blocking Property of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferators and Their Supporters 
Jun. 28 Executive Order: Strengthening Processes Relating to Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified National Security Information 
Jun. 17 Executive Order: Implementing Amendments to Agreement on Border Environment Cooperation Commission and North American Development Bank 
Mar. 10 Executive Order: Amendments to Executive Order 11926 Relating to the Vice Presidential Service Badge 
Feb. 16 Executive Order: Clarification of Certain Executive Orders Blocking Property and Prohibiting Certain Transactions 
2004 
Dec. 3 Executive Order: 2004 Amendments to the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States 
Nov. 29 Executive Order: Modifying the Protection Granted to the Development Fund for Iraq and Certain Property in Which Iraq Has An Interest and Protecting the Central Bank of Iraq 
Nov. 29 Executive Order: Establishing the Afghanistan and Iraq Campaign Medals 
Nov. 29 Executive Order: Designation of Additional Officers for the Department of Homeland Security Order of Succession 
Oct. 19 Executive Order: Notice Continuation of the National Emergency with Respect to Significant Narcotics Traffickers Centered in Colombia 
Sept. 28 Executive Order: Assignment of Functions Relating to Certain Appointments, Promotions, and Commissions in the Armed Forces 
Aug. 27 Executive Order: Strengthened Management of the Intelligence Community 
Aug. 27 Executive Order National Counterterrorism Center 
Aug. 27 Executive Order Strengthening the Sharing of Terrorism Information to Protect Americans 
Aug. 26 Executive Order Facilitation of Cooperative Conservation 
Jul. 23 Executive Order Blocking Property of Certain Persons and Prohibiting the Importation of Certain Goods From Liberia 
Jul. 22 Executive Order: Individuals with Disabilities in Emergency Preparedness 
Jul. 8 Executive Order Delegation of Certain Waiver, Determination, Certification, Recommendation, and Reporting Functions 
Jun. 24 Notice Continuation of the National Emergency with Respect to the Western Balkans 
Jun. 1 Executive Order: Responsibilities of the Department of Commerce and Veterans Affairs and the Small Business Administration with Respect to Faith-Based and Community Initiatives 
May 11 Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons and Prohibiting the Export of Certain Goods to Syria 
Apr. 30 Executive Order: Issuance of Permits with Respect to Certain Energy-Related Facilities and Land Transportation Crossings on the International Boundaries of the United States 
Mar. 18 Executive Order: Amending Executive Order 13257 to Implement the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2003 
Feb. 24 Executive Order: Human Service Transportation Coordination 
Feb. 24 Executive Order: Encouraging Innovation in Manufacturing 
Feb. 6 Executive Order: Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction 
Jan. 23 Executive Order: Amendment to Executive Order 12293, the Foreign Service of the United States 
2003 
Dec. 30 Executive Order Assignment of Functions Relating to Arrivals in and Departures from the United States 
Dec. 17 Executive Order Appointments During National Emergency 
May 9 Executive Order: Facilitating the Administration of Justice in the Federal Courts 
May 8 Executive Order Interagency Group on Insular Areas 
Mar. 20 Executive Order: Confiscating and Vesting Certain Iraqi Property 
Mar. 12 Establishing the Global War on Terrorism Medals 
Mar. 7 Executive Order: Blocking Property Of Persons Undermining Democratic Processes Or Institutions In Zimbabwe 
Mar. 4 Executive Order: Preserve America 
Feb. 28 Executive Order Amendment of Executive Orders, and Other Actions, in Connection with the Transfer of Certain Functions to the Secretary of Homeland Security 
2002 
Dec. 12 Executive Order: Equal Protection of the Laws for Faith-based and Community Organizations 
Dec. 12 Executive Order: Responsibilities of the Department of Agriculture and the Agency for International Development with Respect to Faith-based and Community Initiatives 
Aug. 29 Executive Order: Further Amending Executive Order 10173, as Amended, Prescribing Regulations Relating to the Safeguarding of Vessels, Harbors, Ports, and Waterfront Facilities of the United States 
Jul. 3 Taliban Executive Order 
Apr. 12 Executive Order -- 2002 Amendments to the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States 
Mar. 21 Homeland Security Council Executive Order 
Jan. 30 Establishing the USA Freedom Corps 
2001 
Dec. 20 Executive Order Establishing An Emergency Board 
Dec. 14 Afghanistan Combat Zone Executive Order 
Nov. 28 Executive Order: Creation of the President's Council on Bioethics 
Nov. 27 Executive Order Waiver of Dual Compensation Provisions of the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement Act of 1964 
Nov. 16 National Emergency Construction Authority Executive Order 
Nov. 13 President Issues Military Order 
Nov. 9 Citizen Preparedness in War on Terrorism Executive Order 
Nov. 1 Presidential Records Act Executive Order 
Oct. 16 Executive Order on Critical Infrastructure Protection 
Oct. 8 Executive Order Establishing Office of Homeland Security 
Oct. 1 Continuance of Federal Advisory Committees 
Oct. 1 President Signs PCAST Executive Order 
Sept. 24 Executive Order on Terrorist Financing 
Sept. 14 President Orders Ready Reserves of Armed Forces to Active Duty 
Aug. 17 Executive Order on Export Control Regulations 
May 23 Executive Order: Additional Measures with Respect to Prohibiting the Importation of Rough Diamonds from Sierra Leone 
May 18 Executive Order: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 
May 18 Executive Order: Actions to Expedite Energy-Related Projects 
Mar. 9 Executive Order: Establishing an Emergency Board 
Feb. 21 Executive Order and Presidential Memorandum Concerning Labor-Management Partnerships 
Jan. 29 Agency Responsibilities with Respect to Faith-Based and Community Initiatives 
Jan. 29 Executive Order: Establishment of White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives

https://www.whitehouse.gov/news/orders/


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> In my view Karl, the Third Reich has nothing on the Neocons. E.g. simply read any of the executive orders from Bush in the last six years, or at just about any legislation passed by the last two congresses.
> 
> This isn't America, it's pre-war Germany.
> 
> I will admit this: the headlong plunge into totalitarianism is not limited to the Republican Party. E.g. read up on HR 1955, proposed by Jane Harman (D) of California and passed by 404 members of the Democratic House. Read it carefully, it's the foundation for the final destruction of America.


I saw a black helicopter yesterday.....


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Frank, if the Muslim radicals are successful, aren't homosexuals one of the first groups they will target for persecution? (If you think you are persecuted in present day America, you will be utterly dismayed at what Muslim radicals think of homosexuality.)


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Frank, if the Muslim radicals are successful, aren't homosexuals one of the first groups they will target for persecution? (If you think you are persecuted in present day America, you will be utterly dismayed at what Muslim radicals think of homosexuality.)


Yep, there's a derogatory term for homosexuals that's indicative of their porported fate that still has currency in some parts of the Muslim world.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Frank:

My one and only follow up on your lengthy quote of the webpage I gave you. You said "any". Stupid qualifier to use. Your statement therefore became vacuous and invalid. QED.

Squirm as you will, your words stand for all to see. No amount of ad hoc rescue attempts will make what you said correct. Why not just do the sensible thing? Say, "Gee guys, I was being unwise and engaged in some of my usual hyperbole. It seems that once again Wayfarer has held me to my words and I need to recant. Let us say "some" of his EO I can attempt to at least make the case for..." It would make you seem so much more reasonable and intelligent and maybe foster some reasonable and intelligent debate.

It is all yours now Frank, have a blast.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Frank:
> 
> My one and only follow up on your lengthy quote of the webpage I gave you. You said "any". Stupid qualifier to use. Your statement therefore became vacuous and invalid. QED.
> 
> Squirm as you will, your words stand for all to see. No amount of ad hoc rescue attempts will make what you said correct. Why not just do the sensible thing? Say, "Gee guys, I was being unwise and engaged in some of my usual hyperbole. It seems that once again Wayfarer has held me to my words


Oh brother, here comes the emotionally retarded six year-old again.

Saying "some" of Bush's executive orders are something straight out of Nazi Germany is a much, MUCH larger hyperbole than what I claimed. I posted the link to all his EOs, readers can make up their own minds about it.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Oh brother, here comes the emotionally retarded six year-old again.


Emotionally retarded six year old? Thank you for the ad hom. It sets the proper tone for 2008 between us Frank. I should remember not to attempt even semi-civility towards you, it always gets paid back the same way.

Well, off to the Snow Bowl, coffee is done and I have had my morning chuckle at the expense of your dim bulb.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I once worked with an emotionaly retarded 6 year old. Amazing what 3 square meals, a few hugs and quality time in the sandbox accomplished. Sadly, Frank fell through the system's cracks. Frank, you buy the sand locally and I'll bring the Tonka Toys. I'll leave the tank and missile launcher at home. I could bring Barbie's pink Corvette.


----------



## a tailor (May 16, 2005)

rip said:


> On a totally non-political note, I think assassinations should be reserved for ugly old men.


i represent that statement.


----------

