Good Lord. The guy that oversaw the death squads in various countries in SDouth America, that killed thousands of women and children.

The guy that will be the next Intelligence Chief is someone that is willing to compromise basic human rights to achieve his goals. I'd rather have someone with nanny issues than this guy. But since this is the Bush administation and the Congress is full of yes men he will be the Intelligence Chief, I guess. So much for all that talk about the need of people around the world to live in a just and free world.

This administration has used 9/11 as an excuse to impose it's currupt and greedy agenda on the American public and people all over the world. It's sick and sad how Bush and his buddies have abused their political power. The world is not safer. It is far more dangereous then it was before this administration. There were other better ways to improve freedom and stability around the world, but this administation ignored them. They have their own agenda and world stability, justice and freedom are not part of it.

Eat flaming death, toady roaders of the quasi-neo-fascist Amerikkka death state!!! Long live the peoples' struggle on the path of the Three Disciplines!!!(Sorry, just keeping up with the tone of the thread.)

torpedo_eight,

The next intelligence chief of the USA will be a man who at best looked the other way when terrorism was taking place in Central America and at worst provided support and aid for terrorists. Another brilliant decision by Bush.

But to you it's all just a joke. So who cares. Right? Do you really think that your children will be better off with the massive debt that Bush has accumulated them? Do you think outsourcing high tech industries will give them better opportunities? Where are the WMDs that Collin proved were in IRAQ? What is the next dictatorship that the U.S. will overthrow by force--Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Kuwait, China, Tibet, Russia? No, those are all allies--so who cares about their people's human rights and liberty. Human rights and liberty only come into play when you are trying to motivate poor and middle class kids to go fight and die for the rich, so they can get richer faster.

Why did the U.S. overthrow the democratically elected government of Iran in 1953? The answer oil. Why is the U.S. in Iraq now? The answer oil. What is Bush's background? Answer: oil. Who pays Dick Cheney? Answer Halliburton. What corporation get U.S. tax dollars to rebuild Iraq? The answer Halliburton. Why is Bush against asbestos lawsuits? The answer Halliburton.

Dream, you know, I've tried to engage you in discussion before, but I've found it's futile. No one's going to deter you from your conspiracy-theory apocalypse now vision of America the Evil. The stupid mouth-breathers in the red states couldn't kill themselves fast enough to satisfy you, so why wouldn't I make a joke of it?Just one heavy-handed diatribe after another, I know it's got to wear on you being that bitter all the time. With all the evil that America does, an infantile view of world economics and copy that could've been written by Pongyang? What am supposed to do? Get angry? HA HA HA.Sorry, tried that logic crap with you, didn't work. The situation isn't funny, you are.

Let's look on the bright side, things could always be worse. Namely, Henry Kissinger.

ok, ep

torpedo_eight,



You say:
"The stupid mouth-breathers in the red states couldn't kill themselves fast enough to satisfy you, so why wouldn't I make a joke of it?"



What are you talking about.? Oh, I get it, stereotypes make it easier to ignore the facts.



I believe in freedom and the ideals of the founding fathers of the U.S.A. I despise agencies like the CIA, because of the actions they have taken. The CIA helped get Saddam into power, it helped overthrow many democratically elected governments, it helped install dictators that oppressed and murdered millions of people. The CIA is an organisation that people like George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson would despise as well. No true American can support an agency that supports the overthrow of democracies and the establishment of military dictatorships against the will of the people.



I know I'll never convince you of anything. I'm just expressing my 1st Amendment right...as long as I still have it. With more and more brainwashed people like you I don't think that may be for long.



(What's wrong with this blog? The formatting sucks.)

///George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson would despise as well.///

One suspects also, judging by the things they've written, Dream, that they would hate your vision of socialized medicine, confiscatory taxation, government retirement plans, erosion of religion in the land, and lack of concern for more and more government intrusion into the lives of private citizens.

This thread is making me laugh so hard, why, I think I may have ruptured my spleen.

Guess I better find a Mexican hospital quick, huh, Dream?

Don't sleep too deeply, Dream, you may miss that telltale jackbooted knock on your door in the middle of the night.

On the other hand, it will be equally forgotten that the vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty; that, in the contemplation of a sound and well-informed judgment, their interest can never be separated; and that a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.

---Alexander Hamilton: Federalist paper #1

I believe in freedom and the ideals of the founding fathers of the U.S.A.

ha...ahahhaa...aHAHAHAHAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA

No, ya' don't. :)

Dream, our founding fathers believed, and believed strongly, in LESS government, not MORE. Try again.

Dream, So I guess the real question is - why are you arguing with brainwashed zombies? Won't real people talk to you anymore?Anyway, keep typing, I'm up here with Dick Chenney in our black helicopter and we're trying to pinpoint your house for our jackbooted thugs on the ground.Oooooooh! Scary stuff!!

Dream said: The CIA is an organisation that people like George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson would despise as well.

Hardy-f'ing-har. People with 1st Amendment Rights don't spell organization with an "s." American English uses "z" in the place of an "s." You're an imposter. You have to be an American citizen to have that right, buddy. We don't believe in world governments here, dream-o. So take your hypocrisy, and, well... you know the next part.

jackhammer, T-8, johnnymozart: Ariel Sharon just called and told me to pass along his personal thanks for your help in oppressing Dream. He can't be allowed to get too close to the truth; that John Negroponte's appointment means that the contras will now be elected in Iraq, just as soon as Halliburton finishes building the Afghanistan pipeline to pay off the Saudis to assassinate Kofi Annan.

On your doorsteps tomorrow you will find special gifts: an envelope full of cash and a box of "very special" matzoh...

Thank you once again, fellow Pliable Gentile Stooges Third Class.

(Sorry I can't help with Dream, guys: I'm in the shoggoth pits working on the earthquake/tsunami module for the HAARP array.)

Of course, John Negroponte has worked with worse than contras.

He has spent the last few years as American ambassador to an organization that has raped hundreds of starving children in Africa and forced them into prostitution:

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/UnitedNations/story?id=489306&page=1

Johnnymozart, do you really think that Bush is reducing the size of government? And, johnny, you are right at this point and time I do think that government regulated health care would be better than the current system. I don't think that deregulation of medicine would bring prices down or improve quality--I could be wrong though. I am not saying that the only way to fix health care in the U.S. is to socialize it. You should know that deregulation has had mixed results in the past, health care is too important to risk. Energy prices continue to climb as deregulation has been put in place.

(new paragraph)
"...socialized medicine, confiscatory taxation, government retirement plans, erosion of religion in the land, and lack of concern for more and more government intrusion into the lives of private citizens," by johnnymozart. I agree they would also take issue with some of those areas. Although I think they would find many of the historical actions of the CIA far more a threat to liberty. But I think that the founding fathers belived that liberty was far more precious than security. These days the opposite view seems to be taken by many Americans.

(new paragraph)
It is also kind of interesting to see how you all (johnnymozart, torpedo, jackhammer, and gabriel) gang up and quickly label me some sort of left-wing wako. I guess anyone who differs with your opinions is by default a left-wing wako. You can't imagine there being a middle ground, can you?

(new paragraph)
BTW, I could be wrong about the CIA. These are just my opinions from the somewhat limited information that I have seen. Maybe the CIA is wonderful agency, without which, we'd all be enslaved by some stalinist, communist, athiest regime. I'm just not sure the cure is better than the disease, I guess.

(new paragraph)
Now you can go back to labeling me a communist freak. Have fun. Cya.

Dream: In 3 paragraphs, here's what you cover: Negroponte supports Central American terrorists, our children crushed under Bush's massive deficits, the outsourcing of high tech industries, the WDMs never found in Iraq, other suggested wars of conquest, class warfare where the poor & middle class die for the rich, the '53 overthrow of the Iranian government (for oil), the present occupation of Iraq (for oil) and 3 references to Haliburton.Now why, praytell, should anyone expend any energy calling you a left wing wako? (whacko?) Wouldn't that be rather redundant?Sounds like you've been going through Nancy Pelosi's purse again, you naughty boy. Do you really want to steal her thunder?Gabriel, hey I think we're done here, Mel Laird wants to come over and look at the HAARP array and pitch you some ideas for the new zinc bomb. See you in a few.

Dream,

I'll be honest with you, Dream, I've always liked you. You've always been courteous to me, despite our ideological differences, and you are willing to accede territory for common ground and if I took some comedic license at your expense, don't take offense. You are free to disagree with us, and I'm sure you do. But when you do so in such hyperbolic and disingenuous ways, I will admit, its sometimes hard to take you seriously. Let me explain what I mean.

Torpedo does have a point, Dream, you have to admit. And then to top it off with comparing yourself to the Founding Fathers when I know how much you adhere to marxist ideas is laughable, indeed. This the same kind of caricatured hyperbole we see from the demagogues. I expect more from you. Let me give you a couple of examples: I actually don't know much about Negroponte, I freely admit, but an accusation of "heading up death squads" and "overthrow of democratic governments by the CIA" from the same people whom are EVEN NOW giving the stamp of approval to the "democratic" governments of Hugo Chavez and Robert Mugabe; who adhere to the likes of Fidel and Guerrera is a little hard to take seriously. So, you'll excuse me if its hard to swallow accusations of "undemocratic" from the party of Jimmy Carter who approves as fair and democratic a government who has a 20-year prison penalty for criticism of its head of state---WITHOUT A TRIAL.

See what I mean? Then of course you trot out the old "all for oil" (despite plenty of evidence- including the fact we didn't keep the Kuwaiti oil fields, to the contrary, "no WMD", (despite the Kay and Duelfer reports which cite literally HUNDREDS of violations of every UN resolution in Iraq, all of which, Dream, BY THEMSELVES were gorunds for war, along with obvious effort to circumvent the sanctions for God knows what reason, "better ways which were ignored by the Bush administration" because gosh, those "other ways" have worked so well in Korea, Cuba, Iran, Syria, Saudia Arabia, Pakistan, and libya all this time. Gimme a break, Dream. Ignored? Twelve years? Really? Ignored?

So tell me, who's failing to reach common ground here?

The fact is, if you guys could see FOR ONE SECOND past your seething hatred of Bush and conservatives/capitalists; if you could for the briefest moment consider that perhaps some bad outcomes were the result of good intentions, instead of some malevolent, sinister imperialist plan; that perhaps not everyone fits into your cookie-cutter vision of Bush worshippers (I've gone into great detail with you Dream, about my opposition to the Patriot Act, and yes...some us including T-8 and myself, are not happy with Bush's size of government), then you might find that we agree on more than you think.

Until then, expect the same Marxist regurgitated hyperbole to be relegated to the ridicule it deserves.

Some top quality sarcasm here that purposely (as far as i can surmise) fails to appreciate the dubious utility of an intelligence chief unable to discern the desperate scream of a plummeting nun from the cheery birdsong of a Central American state going about its business. Dream's self-imposed brief was bold: those talking points were to be crammed into a few paragraphs come what may, and I gather formatting problems merely added to the inevitable frustration. But truths were evident.

I don't want to get into a pissing contest over the words of plutocratic slave-owners from centuries back, now, in 2005, but these words are apposite, in any situation and informing any policy: "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind". Any administration elected with a sliver of a percent of global population would do well to heed those words.

Ah, the prodigal banana returns..... :)

dirk strom, if you take a moment to READ the Declaration of Independence, you will discover that "decent respect for the opinions of mankind' compelled the Founding Fathers only to EXPLAIN THEMSELVES.

It did not keep them from doing what they had already decided to do. They did not ask France's permission to fight George III, or take a poll of heads of state.

GWB showed "decent respect to the opinions of mankind' in exactly the same way as the signers of the Declaration did: he explained himself, over and over, for 14 MONTHS before he did ANYTHING.

Yeeesssss!

As sure as eggs is eggs, Gabriel Hanna will parse.The simple fact that the opinions of mankind were against, despite the extended PR "14 MONTHS before he did ANYTHING", had no bearing. It's almost as if the decision was taken immediately post-9/11 by the neo-con policymakers and a campaign rapidly assembled to facilitate. And then the action was er, enacted despite the "decent etc". You mention 14 months. How many months do you think it would take for mankind to recognise the 45 minute threat as not something pulled out someone's fundament? This was the clincher that swung the opinion of mankind with such moment that the only sizeable contribution to the coalition was made. Of course I, along with mankind, am forgetting Saddam's nuclear weapons capability.

The Iraq invasion failed the simple demands of the Enlightenment, several centuries later.

Johnny, the prodigal banana is but one of my names. I'm very popular at dances.

Oh, the "opinions of mankind"! The infallible lodestar of morality and judgement!

The "opinions of mankind" opposed enforcing the collective security provisions of the League of Nations by force against Italy, and the same for Germany's rearmament in defiance of the prohibitions againt the same.

The "opinions of mankind" opposed using force against Hitler's illegal reoccupation of the Rhineland; opposed using force against Hitler's illegal annexation of Austria; opposed ALLOWING THE CZECHS TO DEFEND THEMSELVES against his illegal occupation of the Sudetenland; opposed using force against his illegal annexations of Bohemia and Moravia.

dirk strom, being from the UK, can no doubt tell us what the "opinions of mankind" said about Winston Churchill up until 1939. In 1940, of course, the "opinions of mankind" removed the Chamberlain government for not being ready for the war that in 1938 the "opinions of mankind" said was completely unnecessary and just a way of putting money in the pockets of arms manufacturers.

The "opinions of mankind" were also opposed to keeping the sanctions on Iraq, until the US made clear that it would use force; in which case the "opinions of mankind" declared that sanctions were quite enough and the use of force was not required.

The "opinions of mankind" were against using force to stop genocide in Rwanda, and in Darfur. The "opinions of mankind" howl about Abu Ghraib and are silent about hundreds of children raped and forced into prostitution by UN peacekeepers in Congo over the las five years.

( http://abcnews.go.com/2020/UnitedNations/story?id=489306&page=1 )

The "opinions of mankind" are in favor of SELLING WEAPONS TO IRAN; and of course were in favor of providing Iraq with the vast majority of its weaponry.

But these are all moral actions by definition; the "opinions of mankind" define morality, dirk strom tells me.

But methinks I hear a still, small, voice, saying "thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil."

dirk srome, it wouldn't be necessary for me to parse woreds if you didn't delibreately distort them.

You hold up the Founding Fathers as an example, deliberately distort their words to say something that they did not, endorsing a course of action they did not follow. Namely, to find out what the world thinks before going to war. "Declaration" is the key word in "Declaration of Independence"; it is not title "Request for a poll on the subject of America's independence". Since the American Revolution had only the support of roughly 1/3 of Americans, with equal numbers on the Loyalist side, your characterization of the Founding Fathers' statement of "decent respect for the opinions of mankind" is particularly egregrious, since they clearly did not even care about having a majority of their own countrymen on their side, much less a majority of world opinion.

You're not ignorant, dirk strom--you did it on purpose. You can't say what you did and mean it without being utterly ignorant about the American Revolution. Then when I provide the correct context for the quote, you have the chutzpah to criticize me for parsing words, when you're deliberately trying to deceive people.

Apologies. My spod-time has recently been devoted to organising my mp3 collection (Take that, 2nd Law of Thermodynamics)

the “opinions of mankind” define morality

Well, mankind is my first port of call. Next, I solicit dogs, badgers, and if really pressed I seek guidance from the simple lemur. My recourse to the lower mammals has yet to bear fruit, but I feel hopeful. Of course if the menagerie fails me, I could always fall back on more cold-blooded counsel.

Call me a liar if you like, Gabriel. I used the ‘decent respect’ quote with clearly stated provision - I think it should permeate human society and its polity. Nor did I imply that the quote referred to simple, often misguided political expressions such as the German appeasement of the ’30s. Ambivalence about such a nation - a powerful industrial nation with a leadership elected with the support of organised Christianity, that cited Christianity in the prosecution of its agenda, that shipped people off to camps they often didn’t survive - is indeed unwise. Thanks for the heads-up.

So Negroponte will head up an organisation that can effectively disappear people, just as people were disappeared in their thousands in Central America. I can’t say I’ve religiously followed your blog comments with regard to GWOT judicial practice (I’d be breaking commandment 8 if I did), but the only misgiving I recall you voicing was to cast doubt on the strength of the legal case against the convicted swindler Ahmed Chalabi because he was convicted in absentia. I’m sure the reader can agree this touching concern for fair treatment of a suspect is entirely appropriate in this case - but not generally.

Your concerns about the abuses perpetrated in the Congo are noted. How are these crimes endorsed by, as you put it, ‘the opinions of mankind’? Are these abuses UN policy? I don’t think so. People are often pretty shady, especially where sex and/or money are involved. Imagine the shame if prostitution were to taint the simple and good activity of, say, a US president. Imagine the congressional hearings, the millions of dollars of taxpayer-funded legal costs, the stain on a nation’s soul! Strange, isn’t it? Sexual impropriety in the White House was such a burning issue pre-2000 - now only foreign-based whoring is worthy of condemnation. Imagine someone advancing evidence that wasn’t a direct result of a body’s policy as damning evidence against that body, while defending the policy of a second body that was clearly responsible for some directly attributable indefensible results. It would be laughable.

The Bible has been used to justify many of the most shameful chapters in human history, and indeed in American history. The cleansing of the natives, the immolation of the innocent, enslavement of entire races. Here, an admittedly good quotation is deployed in a thread about Negroponte. If the multitude are against raping and murdering nuns, assassination and terrorism then I stand with them. If they are against setting dogs on fat-smeared prisoners, starving, beating and mutilating them and leaving them to die on cold slabs then again I stand with them. And when I go to the place allotted for evil-doers, I will look up to you Gabriel in your better place, if only to glimpse the uncanny visage of the fount of goodness beside you that decreed my concerns so heinous.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (Click here should you choose to sign out.)

As you post your comment, please mind our simple comment policy: we welcome all perspectives, but require that comments be both civil and respectful. We also ask that you avoid the extensive use of profanity, racist terms (neither of which we consider civil or respectful), and other boorish language.

We reserve the right to delete any comment, and to prohibit you from commenting on this site, if we feel you have broached this policy. As a courtesy, we will first send you an email noting a violation so you understand the boundaries. This will occur only once, however, and should we ban you from our comment forums we expect that ban to be permanent.

We also will frown upon those who suggest that we ban other individuals for voicing unpopular opinions, should those opinions be voiced in a civil and respectful manner. The point of our comment threads is to provide a forum for spirited though civil and respectful discourse … it is not to provide a forum in which everyone will agree with your point of view.

If you can live by these rules, welcome aboard. If not, then we’re sorry it didn’t work out, and thanks for visiting The Command Post.

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: