|
|
Post by stonefruit on Mar 28, 2005 20:29:54 GMT -5
Look at this exchange on the "Was ABB Successful?" thread, the only post-mortem allowed to live. Smirky Chimpster needs to switch to decaf - and adress the substance of my arguements. smirkingchimp.com/viewtopic.php?topic=53152&forum=9110 of 118. stonefruit | Member 9029, Joined Oct 25, 2002 | 738 posts -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted: 2005-03-28 15:39 A reprehensible disgusting immoral failure from craven servile start to pathetic simpering finish. Former Clinton aide and Kerry adviser hails choice of Wolfowitz for World Bank In an op-ed piece in the March 22 issue of the New York Times, James Rubin enthusiastically endorses President Bush’s choice of Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense and a leading architect of the Iraq war, to head the World Bank. Rubin, as assistant secretary of state, was the State Department’s main press spokesman during the Clinton administration. He served as John Kerry’s chief national security adviser in the Democratic senator’s 2004 presidential campaign. Rubin’s column is not only a gushing tribute to Wolfowitz—a man who is rightly reviled around the world as a war criminal and held in contempt for his shameless lies about Iraqi “weapons of mass destruction” and Al-Qaeda ties prior to the US invasion—it is an unabashed defense of the war and occupation, and the broader policy of imperialist aggression and neo-colonialism of which the Iraq war is a part. Rubin explicitly solidarizes himself with the neo-conservatives and their doctrine of aggressive war, under the cover of a crusade for “democracy.” This leading Democratic foreign policy spokesman thereby leaves no doubt as to the essential unity of both parties of American big business in support of the United States’ drive for global hegemony. Chastising fellow Democrats and Europeans who have criticized Bush’s choice of Wolfowitz for the World Bank post, Rubin writes: “Mr. Wolfowitz has supported the idea that the advanced countries should use their resources to promote democracy and prosperity around the world. Indeed, at the core of the neo-conservative mission is the expenditure of American resources in support of democratic values.” (These values presumably include torture, kidnapping and incarcerating people without charges, razing entire cities to the ground, and establishing gulags in various parts of the world). Rubin continues: “He is just the right person to build support for this critical task [reducing poverty] during the Bush administration.” Answering those who criticize Wolfowitz for his role in the Iraq war, Rubin makes no bones of his own unqualified support for the invasion and occupation, while noting the Pentagon official’s mistakes and miscalculations. “But these were questions of means,” Rubin writes, “not motive. His motives were laudable and in line with a tradition of foreign policy idealism [sic!] that both parties have supported at different times: the use of American power to fight tyranny and support democratic values. Mr. Wolfowitz was one of the few Republicans who supported President Clinton’s interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo.” Rubin underlines his central message by concluding: “Democrats struggling with the appointment of Mr. Wolfowitz may want to keep in mind that spreading democracy is a bipartisan mission.” Shortly after the Democratic convention last summer that nominated Kerry as the party’s presidential candidate, Rubin told the Washington Post that had Kerry been president, “in all probability” he would have ordered an invasion of Iraq. Rubin’s Times column reinforces that statement, and makes crystal clear that had the Democrat been elected last November, there would have been no significant change in US policy in Iraq, and no letup in Washington’s preparations for new wars of aggression. [ This message was edited by: stonefruit on 2005-03-28 15:40 ] Edit this post | Reply to this post | Reply with quote | Send a private message to stonefruit -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 111 of 118. Riqster OH | Member 1130, Joined May 16, 2001 | 5727 posts -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted: 2005-03-28 15:41 I never liked Ruben, and have never seen why he would have been considered a Dem. ----------------- "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.—Franklin, July 4, 1776" Reply to this post | Reply with quote | Send a private message to Riqster -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 112 of 118. SmirkyChimpster New York, New York | Member 148, Joined Nov 20, 2000 | 1396 posts -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted: 2005-03-28 15:42 Stonefruit, how is your post even remotely germane to this thread? "Some of the names are the same" is not a good answer. Reply to this post | Reply with quote | Send a private message to SmirkyChimpster |
|
|
|
Post by stonefruit on Mar 28, 2005 20:31:08 GMT -5
113 of 118. stonefruit | Member 9029, Joined Oct 25, 2002 | 738 posts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: 2005-03-28 16:05
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2005-03-28 15:42, SmirkyChimpster wrote:
Stonefruit, how is your post even remotely germane to this thread?
"Some of the names are the same" is not a good answer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is more than remotely germane; it is extremely germane. As I and the tiny handful of others not willing to join the ABB chorus (many of whom have left this site in despair) have all said repeatedly - almost all of Kerry's key advisors had strategic goals nearly identical with those of the Bush Family Evil Empire. The only differences were tactical, putting a nicer face on precisely the same regime of imperial plunder and endless war. These comments from Rubin prove it in spades.
[ This message was edited by: stonefruit on 2005-03-28 16:05 ]
Edit this post | Reply to this post | Reply with quote |
Send a private message to stonefruit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
114 of 118. SmirkyChimpster New York, New York | Member 148, Joined Nov 20, 2000 | 1396 posts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: 2005-03-28 16:09
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2005-03-28 16:05, stonefruit wrote:
(many of whom have left this site in despair)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I shed no tear over the departure of those who make it their life's work to tear down Democrats.
Why are you still here?
Reply to this post | Reply with quote |
Send a private message to SmirkyChimpster
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
115 of 118. Duncan_Idaho | Member 17217, Joined Sep 26, 2003 | 211 posts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: 2005-03-28 16:40
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2005-03-28 16:05, stonefruit wrote:
It is more than remotely germane; it is extremely germane. As I and the tiny handful of others not willing to join the ABB chorus (many of whom have left this site in despair) have all said repeatedly - almost all of Kerry's key advisors had strategic goals nearly identical with those of the Bush Family Evil Empire. The only differences were tactical, putting a nicer face on precisely the same regime of imperial plunder and endless war. These comments from Rubin prove it in spades.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Borg do not evolve, they conquer.
-----------------
Without change, something sleeps inside us, and seldom awakens. The sleeper must awaken.
Frank Herbert
Reply to this post | Reply with quote |
Send a private message to Duncan_Idaho
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
116 of 118. stonefruit | Member 9029, Joined Oct 25, 2002 | 738 posts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: 2005-03-28 16:41
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2005-03-28 16:09, SmirkyChimpster wrote:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2005-03-28 16:05, stonefruit wrote:
(many of whom have left this site in despair)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I shed no tear over the departure of those who make it their life's work to tear down Democrats.
Why are you still here?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think their live's work was to tear down democrats. I think they were just intensely frustrated that the democratic party had betrayed their own professed ideals in profound and probably incontrovertible ways and were no longer the party of the working people, the middle class, the public health and welfare, environmental preservation, and international justice and that the candidate-products trotted out by the MSM and Powers That Be to maintain the facade of choice and the American brand name as a functional democracy in what has become a duopoly was seemingly tolerated as either acceptable or our "realistic option" and therefore part of the means of rectifying a system that has become broken beyond redemption, bought and sold by horrific anti-planet, anti-future, anti-human corporations dedicated to endless war fought with 50% of our fed tax dollars.
Why am I here? Well I did take a hiatus after the deafening cries of the ABB amen corner grew to loud. But I'm back - to learn, to laugh, to reach out, to teach, to build community. And because there's still a stauch bakers' dozen of us who are still anti-imperialist anti-coproratists and therefore suspicious of democrats except for the kucinich, waters, lee, conyers, etc coterie.
There are three levels to viewing society: 1) those who accept the conventional reality. They can be "radical" like chomsky, ward churchill et al or more simply "liberal" like most chimpsters. 2) the "deep politics" view of those who see an interlocking oligarchy of nefarious cliques at the confluence of high finance, diplomacy, the military/paramilitary, intelligence, narcotrafficking, organized crime, etc that run current events/history but use the MSM/education system/doublespeak to create the "conventional reality." 3) those who not only accept the existence of these nefarious cliques but have come to the unmistakable conclusion that one of the most powerful of these cliques are clinically psychotic, pedophile, satanists who conjure an extremely powerful occult side to the national security state and its privatized cohorts.
Just cuz we're not all in the first category is not reason to lambaste us. Free Republic are goosesteppers. No need for SC to be.
Edit this post | Reply to this post | Reply with quote |
Send a private message to stonefruit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
117 of 118. Pegmumm Near the Wash/Can. border | Member 8650, Joined Oct 15, 2002 | 4907 posts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: 2005-03-28 16:53
Ahh and stonefruit is their mouthpiece?
-----------------
"Ladies and Gentleman take my advice. Sometimes you have to just pull down your pants and slide on the ice"---Dr. Sydney Freedman
Reply to this post | Reply with quote |
Send a private message to Pegmumm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
118 of 118. SmirkyChimpster New York, New York | Member 148, Joined Nov 20, 2000 | 1396 posts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: 2005-03-28 18:38
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2005-03-28 16:41, stonefruit wrote:
( snip )
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gosh, thanks for explaining my own web site to me.
One more time: If you are here to better the Democratic Party, and if within the context of that, you criticize policy and policy-makers where criticism is due, then good for you, Bunkie -- pull up a chair and join the fray.
If your only agenda here is to tear down all Democrats across the board (except perhaps for two or three whom you deem ideologically pure) and for chrissakes if after five-plus years of rule by Bush-Cheney-Ashcroft-DeLay-Lott-Frist-Armey-Rumsfeld-Gonzales-and-everybody-the-f**k-else you still have the unmitigated temerity maintain there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats, then Jesus H. f**king Christ On A Bike, get the f**king f**k off my web site.
Because I'm tired of you.
Reply to this post | Reply with quote |
Send a private message to SmirkyChimpster
|
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Mar 28, 2005 21:19:59 GMT -5
Holy Sh*t!!!! What an *ssh*le!!!!!!!! What a fl*ming *ssh*le!!!
And the thing is, they do speak for the neocon wing of the Democratic Party: they do want people to leave-- blacks, e.g.
And they will get their wish. However, their candidates lost the bid for DNC chair. The New Chair was plenty critical of ABB and wrote a book about it. So the DNC Chair would also be unwelcome at that slimey ignorant New Jersey "I live in my mother's basement-- feel my sting! feel my sting!" Teischer.
That site is just a club for Jewish gays.
|
|
|
|
Post by RPankn on Mar 28, 2005 23:22:14 GMT -5
This must be a new ploy by ABB/NDN/"New" "Democrats" because I see a similar sentiment being expressed at DU as well; the good news is a lot of people aren't buying it and are ready to bolt the party if someone like Clinton is nominated in 2008. What the same types are saying at DU is, if you don't support the losers the beltway insiders are putting up, you're a Naderite and helping to secure another term for the Republicans. Bascially, a variation on the same ABB theme. Well, in someone like Hillary Clinton's case, why should I support someone who sees nothing wrong with allowing the giggling fascist in the White House kill tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians, and thousands of Americans, by launching a war premised on lies and obfuscation, but thinks there's a moral "crisis" over violent video games? And then she gets into bed with the religious right, in the persons of Santorum and Brownback, on this issue to appear more "mainstream." Because she's a woman? I think not. If the Democrats are gaming to put a woman at the top of the ticket, there are probably 10 other Democratic women I can think of off the top of my head I could easily support, but Clinton is not one of them. In fact, I don't really see the difference if there's a Republican or "New Democrat" in the White House because, as stonefruit notes, there's virtually no difference between them in the outcome, it's really a process argument between them.
I've really given up on sites like DU and SC though, except to use them as a clearinghouse for articles it would take me some time to search for and may not find. Since both sites eventually succeed at driving individuals who haven't succumbed to the party groupthink away, they seem to be repositories for threads upon thread of party hacks talking at, and past, one another.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ropegun on Mar 30, 2005 21:24:01 GMT -5
That ridiculous thread still goes on, with the likes of Kwadwo speaking up and letting it fly at idiots like Bughead, Rigster, and their ilk.
I had no choice but to call Smirky a punk and a fool on his own board. The dude is no less an a$$ than the freepers, and his followers are just exactly the same.
I'm surprised I'm not banned from that site like so many others.
|
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Mar 30, 2005 23:55:28 GMT -5
Kwadwo speaking up ? But not at the Board Boss, right? He's funny.
The Dude et al is indeed as responsible for assisting in the bloodshed in Iraq -- He et al attempted to shut down all discussion re: the war when it started: it was clear that it is a neocon site.
|
|
|
|
Post by tombldr on Mar 31, 2005 17:22:13 GMT -5
I still check the headlines on SC.
I've noticed they've had some articles recently about Peak Oil, which always stirs up a hornet's nest of replys.
The othe day they reprinted the Scott Ritter article where he reiterates about cheney's intention to be bombing Iran by June. Shockingly, Ritter cites Israel's role as advisers throughout.. which I've always assumed SmirkyCo consciously kept off the radar as they gatekeep their Dem flock.
I don't see 911 truth articles per se, but today I noticed at the top left of the homepage, they link to a petition to sign re Sibel Edmonds' plight.
So what's going on there? Did smirkyCo see the light wrt 911-Truth? Peak Oil? In trying to figure out AIPAC whip and closet SC BoardNanny bloffoflobbin's vigillence in seeking to ridicule/marginalize 911-Truthers not only at SC but also at DU, I decided it probably boiled down to where 911-qui-bono leads, straight to Israel, which is NOT where the AIPAC/Zionists want average sheeple's attention. Bloffo's efforts at seeking to "debunk" and ridicule 911-Truthers, at least while I was around, were too consistent and conspicuous not to raise this separate set of questions.
|
|
|
|
Post by stonefruit on Mar 31, 2005 18:25:31 GMT -5
I can't decide whether to even respond to smirky chimpster's major dis. Part of me thinks "why bother? this is part of the problem - if intelligent "democrats" can't see reality in front of their face, Amerikkka is going down just as hard and as fast as i fear it will because the dems have the better claim to being at least somewhat more reality-based."
|
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Mar 31, 2005 21:34:38 GMT -5
Tom: You nailed it.
They did the same thing with the neocons-- driving anyone from the site who suggested their existance. Until someone in the Dem Party greenlighted the term or something.
It's ALL about diverting attention from the real culprits.
|
|
|
|
Post by tombldr on Apr 3, 2005 21:40:16 GMT -5
I mentioned Karl Schwarz in a couple of other thread as he is a 911-Truther who brings alot of lesser known financial motives for 911 to the table. Around a year ago there was an SC thread called "Have you heard of Michael Ruppert?" which I believe bloffo deleted. But it lasted for a few weeks and I got into a dialog with Smirky/Tiedrich re the virtues of Ruppert/FTW. Tiedrich was distancing himself from Ruppert, insisting his site's not a CT site, and even bloffo chimed in with "Ruppert's a hoser" or some similarly empty remark. I asserted (wrongly) that SC had reprinted numerous Ruppert articles in the past, and I didn't understand Tiedrich's now distancing himself from Ruppert. Tiedrich fired back that he'd never reprinted a Ruppert or FTW article, and dared me to use the SC search function to prove my claim. I did so, and conceded that I was mistaken in that there were no direct FTW reprints, but there were many search hits since his chosen authors often cited FTW as a source (the cause of my mistaken assertion), and I asserted that obviously his selected authors and FTW run in the same ideological circles, and asked again why the sensitivity about Ruppert/FTW? Tiedrich went silent, and the thread was suicided a few days later. Anyways I just did another "Ruppert" search to see the latest, now that SC seems to be taking 911-Truth more seriously. Again many hits, again all authors citing Ruppert/FTW (and some extraneous hits for "Ruppert Murdoch"). So back to Schwarz, I was interested to notice via one of the Ruppert hits that SC had reprinted this article about Schwarz: Richard W. Behan: 'A Republican businessman vilifies George Bush' wherin Schwarz himself chimes in in the comments under the handle KWBS. I don't know if he remains active at SC or if that was a flash in the pan based the the article about him. Here's a link to his 6 part (7th part pending) series on 911-Truth called "Pop Goes the Bush Mythology Bubble" |
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Apr 4, 2005 10:45:22 GMT -5
I see he posted a ppt file--
The thing about the Afghanistan angle of the 9-11 motive is that Bush actually did NOT plan to invade Afghanistan-- he was going to skip that and go straight for Iraq. And the media immediately began to try to link 9-11 w/ Iraq-- notably Wolf Blitzer of CNN-- as well as the Anthrax attacks, which were clearly launched by same parties who wanted to bring about Iraq war. (Funny, Blitzer didn't get any).
|
|
|
|
Post by tombldr on Apr 5, 2005 0:34:59 GMT -5
The thing about the Afghanistan angle of the 9-11 motive is that Bush actually did NOT plan to invade Afghanistan-- he was going to skip that and go straight for Iraq. And the media immediately began to try to link 9-11 w/ Iraq-- notably Wolf Blitzer of CNN-- as well as the Anthrax attacks, which were clearly launched by same parties who wanted to bring about Iraq war. (Funny, Blitzer didn't get any). Actually Afghanistan's invasion was planned all spring and summer 01. This is well documented. Not only for the Unocal pipe through it, but also because the Taliban had wiped out over 90% of the poppy crop (heroin) economy, which the CIA controlled, with the profits laundered through Wall Street helping prop up our whole debt based bubble economy, as well as providing "black funds for black ops". Oct/Nov is planting season in Afghanistan. The proof of the pudding is in the eating: the Afghan poppy crop snapped back to exceed its old heyday levels, and currently the city of Bagdhad has an epidemic it's never seen before: heroin. Safe to say Iraq's colonization had been in the military/petrolium complex's sights for a decade or more, but the Taliban's relatively recent successful cutting off CIA/Wall Street's drug profits, putting our bubble economy in imminent jeopardy of collapse, abruptly rushed Afghanistan to the top of the queue by 2001. While the Afghan poppy crop is back better-n-ever, word is, the Caspian Sea oil is a great disappointment compared to the "Saudi-Arabia-like super field" they initially believed they had. So the critical pipe through Afghanistan motive for her violent aquisition to control/transport this motherload, ends up being, ah, not so much. But the CIA/Wall Street (2 sides of the same coin) controlled global heroin trade, profiting from new junkees worldwide to prop up our bubble economy for just a couple extra years, is right back on track. Oh and, the WAR ON DRUGS, with it's ever expanding prison-industrial complex, managing and warehousing the underclasses dumb enough to get caught with a joint--- doing just fine thank you. |
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Apr 5, 2005 5:11:36 GMT -5
I understand that there was a military plan for the invasion of Afghanistan-- my impression is that one was developed or under development in the Clinton Administration, where there was more focus on OBL, anyway.
My impression is that the military-- the traditional military-- planned for a full invasion of Afghanistan and not the half-assed use of proxies with US bases along the proposed oil pipeline, or with the plan of attacking Iran.
The use of the proxies, is my impression, was a Bush WH idea-- thus the assasination of Masood may have been due to a tip off from inside the WH from those who have connections to OBL.
I do know that when this assasination occurred, there was alarm and further warnings to the WH but that these were also ignored, just as the warnings during the transition and on the night Bush took office were ignored.
There is also the Blair angle (and UK intelligence) to consider. What role they played in this (and the poppy growth-- they have a tradition of opium trade and fighting wars to protect it) I am not sure.
It is my impression that Blair and the JIC, established by Majors, have been in favor of the Israeli agenda re: the middle east even during the Clinton Administration, and that the Clinton Administration tried to put the brakes on. (the invasion of Iraq).
Bush surrounded himself w/ those who promote the PNAC/Israeli agenda from the time he became a candidate. And I have it on reliable authority, that he promised some big media honchos that he would invade Iraq. This caused some in the media who had been wanting this to propagandize for Bush and to be on board to propagandize for the Iraq war. Insiders in the elite New York/Washington/Los Angeles media empires were very much in favor of an invasion of Iraq due to their attachment to Israel.
There was no mention of an invasiion of Afghanistan-- not that I have heard any buzz on, anyway. Some in Hollywood had taken up the cause of the women in Afghanistan, but it isn't my impression that the elites here and in New York were part of any effort to get the American people behind an invasion of Afghanistan.
Here in Washington there was a huge fault line between those who felt that Afghanistan should be invaded, but properly with alot of troops to control the countryside, and the Usraelis who were geared up for Bush's planned Iraq invasion, and would have skipped Afghanistan altogether.
I think it would be useful to examine the UK role in the Afghanistan part.
The European powers all seem to be geared up for reconquest of their old colonies, and I am guessing that the Brits may have had more of a role than we are aware of one way or the other.
|
|
|
|
Post by RPankn on Apr 5, 2005 7:37:57 GMT -5
Isn't the trans-Afghan pipeline also supposed to be used for natural gas delivery? I remember reading somewhere that Enron had spent a lot of money building a nuclear power plant in India, but for some reason had to convert it to natural gas, and the trans-Afghan pipeline was supposed to provide the natural gas to this plant, which would also have helped Enron recoup the billions it spent.
Masood was the leader of Afghan opposition to the Taliban wasn't he? If so, I'm pretty sure he was assassinated the day before Sept. 11th by a so-called al-Qaeda operative posing as a journalist.
|
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Apr 5, 2005 17:25:07 GMT -5
Yes-- that's the guy-- one would have thought that someone would have added 2+2. Knowing that the US planned to use the Northern Alliance as proxies to fight Al Queda/Taliban, should it become warranted, it was very alarming when OBL took him out, and there WERE alarm bells going off in Washington in the anti-terrorist set and those who watch that part of the world.
He may have been shot on the 9th-- I'm not absolutely certain, because they kept his death secret for awhile (though his shooting was announced). Can't recall if this was a matter of hours or days.
|
|
