| Author | Message | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Advanced Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 2821 Registered: 6-2001 |
Greg: I didn't disagree with your ideas, I disagreed with your delivery. Take a long look at your posts, review mine, and you'll see what I meant. Art | ||
| Dave (Maranelloman)
Advanced Member Username: Maranelloman Post Number: 3211 Registered: 1-2002 |
Ho-hum. Keep dancing, Telson. It's over, and so are you.  | ||
| Telson (Pitbull_trader)
Junior Member Username: Pitbull_trader Post Number: 203 Registered: 8-2003 |
"Regarding KDS, I read what he wrote and I can't see how you claim he is a liar. Read this one Telson.. Kds said he was in intelligence for 6 years. In another statement, he said 2 out of 6 years were as regimental intelligence officer." LOL, when someone on this board singuluarly lacking in intelligence makes the claim that he was an intelligence officer and is THEREFORE able to debate the issues, and that is exactly what Kds did, and makes the initial claim that he was an intelligence officer for SIX years... but ONE month later forgot what he first wrote, and all of a sudden its TWO years, it doesn't take a forensic expert to deduce that the guy is a pathetic liar who needs to make unsubstantiated claims to give his positions that regularly consisted of nothing but slimey spin and duplicitious fact twisting anyway, credibility, unsubstantiated hype over substance, in other words. What really took the cake was where KDS offered to offer "proof" of the fact that he had allegedly been an intelligence officer - as absolutely ludicrous as it is that any one who had been in intelligence would actually admit as much on a message board on the web - lol, but the "proof" that he came up with was an absolutely ridiculous picture of some one sitting in desert sand. Which of course proves absolutely nothing. Nothing, that is, but a singular lack of intelligence on behalf of Kds for posting those pics as "proof" for his laughable and childish claims in the first place, and actually only offers additional insight into the totally twisted workings of his brain. | ||
| Gregory (Prugna_328)
Junior Member Username: Prugna_328 Post Number: 104 Registered: 9-2003 |
Jim, i agree, but i had to add my $00.02 | ||
| Jim E (Jimpo1)
Advanced Member Username: Jimpo1 Post Number: 2765 Registered: 7-2001 |
It's not about 'Truth' Telson, it's about Ferrarichat.com. We're here to talk about Ferraris and lifestyle things that associate with Ferraris. You post nothing but political propaganda. I want you to go away because you offer NOTHING Ferrari related. | ||
| Thomas I (Wax)
Member Username: Wax Post Number: 717 Registered: 7-2003 |
What's amazing is how many of these clueless protesters who are advocating Socialism - are calling Bush a Nazi. Were the agenda of those who are actually at the core of organizing protests followed, protesters will find out what a Nazi really is. | ||
| Gregory (Prugna_328)
Junior Member Username: Prugna_328 Post Number: 102 Registered: 9-2003 |
I believe people have the right to believe antything they want. However seems to me because you dont agree with me you tell me its counter productive. It seems its you who believes that I am not entitled to my view that the news loves trying to make Bush look bad | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Advanced Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 2810 Registered: 6-2001 |
Greg: That sort of talk is counter productive. Have you ever considered that there is an alternative view of how this country should be run? People with differing points of view are also good Americans, and this demonizing them just serves to raise the level or tone of the argument. I strongly believe that Bush, et al lied to us about this war, I also strongly believe that Bush, et al's policies will hurt most of the people in the US. However, I am willing to view the opposite side, and consider them, for the most part as loyal Americans. I would hope that you realize that those with a different opinion are also pretty good people, and not someone to demonize. We've seen on this thread just how easy it is to start name calling, and it does go both ways. Art | ||
| Gregory (Prugna_328)
Junior Member Username: Prugna_328 Post Number: 101 Registered: 9-2003 |
The left/news media has only 1 goal. Make this amin. look bad. Like an earlier post said, have you noticed the "glee" they take in reporting another American death. Also they must add to the report EVERYTIME-This is the #____ since the President said the war was over. They also love to report how "bad" the economy is. If we are in such a bad economy and things are "so bad', how come every time I go out to the stores near where I live, they are packed. People see to be doing a heck of a lot of shopping in such a bad economy. Try to go out to eat? Forget it. The Restaurants are packed. I guess we are all so broke. At least this Pres. is trying the last ones only concern was where is my next BJ coming from. | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Advanced Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 2807 Registered: 6-2001 |
Although I believe that Telson is right about a lot of what he says, I do agree with MikeB in that there is indeed a better way to present the argument. When this degenerates into people calling each liars, etc. reason is the first victim. Art | ||
| Dave (Maranelloman)
Advanced Member Username: Maranelloman Post Number: 3197 Registered: 1-2002 |
...and so it was written. EXCELLENT post, Mike. It's over. | ||
| Mike B (Srt_mike)
Member Username: Srt_mike Post Number: 412 Registered: 12-2002 |
Telson, Whenever someone presents a view that they claim is entirely, totally and absoulutely correct, you have to wonder why, if it was so obvious, it wasn't widely known and accepted before this person brought it to light. Just like a telemarketer calling me and acting shocked that I don't want to take advantage of their wonderful offer - because it's SO great that only an idiot wouldn't want to! Usually when people approach me like this, I get very skeptical, because I think they are lying to me and they are ignoring a lot of facts in an effort to paint their stance in the best possible light. That is exactly what you do and have done in every post. Rather than holding an intelligent discussion based on facts, all you want to do is spew propaganda... and it's not even propaganda that you created, it's just cut and paste BS. Why bother? Honestly, do you think that anyone is reading this and is going to change to your side by being "enlightened"? Does it make you feel better about yourself to get this off your chest? I don't know - what is it? You admittedly dont care about the content of the site - so why be here? I think your only purpose is to annoy some people that have b!tch slapped you, and that is something a child would do. Regarding KDS, I read what he wrote and I can't see how you claim he is a liar. Read this one Telson.. "I was a senator for 12 years. I was also chairman of the intelligence committee for 7 years". Are those two statements contradictory? Kds said he was in intelligence for 6 years. In another statement, he said 2 out of 6 years were as regimental intelligence officer. You don't know what he did the other 4 years. You are ASSuming it was something other than intelligence. Right before my eyes you have twisted facts to draw an likely incorrect conclusion. Your "proof" doesn't prove anything. For all we know, those 2 years were just that particular position, which was a subset of the entire time in intelligence. Now Telson, when you do that, it makes me think one of two things. It makes me think either you are unscrupulous and would attempt to pull the wool over my eyes, or rely on dubious "facts" to make your point. Or, it makes me think that you are not as smart as I am, because I was able to see that inconsistency in a microsecond, and you haven't picked up on it in weeks worth of verbal flailing. Now, one of those two things are the case - and regardless of which it is, why am I going to listen to someone who a) Is possibly not too smart b) Would lie and twist facts to "prove" their point, and rely on dubious sources c) Only is interested in stirring the pot d) Doesn't appear to offer any new ideas, but rather cuts and pastes everything The answer is, I would not listen to such a person. So you see, by being SO determined to "win" and "prove" your point, you have relied on bad data, and you have resorted to, if not outright lies, then at least very major twists of the truth. And I consider people like you irrelevant, and so does just about 99.999% of the population. Your insecurity and NEED to be right AT ANY COST are actually what destroyed your credibility. I've filed "Telson, Pitbull Trader" in with Sharpton, Farrakhan, Duke, and other extremists and morons who are cut of the same cloth as you. Just realize that is how you are seen by everyone around here. | ||
| Telson (Pitbull_trader)
Junior Member Username: Pitbull_trader Post Number: 200 Registered: 8-2003 |
 Jim, if you cannot handle / strongly dislike the truth, just keep your blinders on and don't read this. It's real simple. | ||
| Jim E (Jimpo1)
Advanced Member Username: Jimpo1 Post Number: 2761 Registered: 7-2001 |
Telson, go away. | ||
| Telson (Pitbull_trader)
Junior Member Username: Pitbull_trader Post Number: 199 Registered: 8-2003 |
 Nibbles, one lttle problem with that "logic": Where dem dang nasty weapons, da link to 9-11, and Saddam being that ole HUGE and IMMINENT threat to the USA ITSELF our lying Chicken-Hawk-in-Chief Bush was promising us on a daily basis? I mean, hey, even the administration admitted that WMD's etc were just a lie to con gullible US citizens: "Colin Powell Secretary of State. "But if the heart of your question is whether or not we see any complicity between Iraq and the events of Sept. 11 through Al Qaeda, we do not have that connection."" http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/DailyNews /powell_transcript021112.html "Powell 2001: WMDs Not Significant Asked about the sanctions placed on Iraq, which were then under review at the Security Council, Powell said the measures were working. In fact, he added, "(Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq, and these are policies that we are going to keep in place." http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/4119353. html "On May 15 2001, Powell went further and said that Saddam Hussein had not been able to "build his military back up or to develop weapons of mass destruction" for "the last 10 years". America, he said, had been successful in keeping him "in a box"." http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/content_ objectid=13434081_method=full_siteid=50143_ headline=-THE%2DBIG%2DLIE-name_page.html "Condoleeza Rice 2001: "Saddam does not control the northern part of the country," she said. "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."" http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/content_ objectid=13434081_method=full_siteid=50143_ headline=-THE%2DBIG%2DLIE-name_page.html "WMD Just a Convenient Excuse for War, Admits Wolfowitz By David Usborne The Independent Friday 30 May 2003 The Bush administration focused on alleged weapons of mass destruction as the primary justification for toppling Saddam Hussein by force because it was politically convenient, a top-level official at the Pentagon has acknowledged. The extraordinary admission comes in an interview with Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Defence Secretary, in the July issue of the magazine Vanity Fair. "For bureaucratic reasons we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on," Mr Wolfowitz tells the magazine. The comments suggest that, even for the US administration, the logic that was presented for going to war may have been an empty shell. They come to light, moreover, just two days after Mr Wolfowitz's immediate boss, Donald Rumsfeld, the Defence Secretary, conceded for the first time that the arms might never be found." http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/053103A.shtml  | ||
| Nibblesworth (Nebulaclass)
Member Username: Nebulaclass Post Number: 800 Registered: 11-2002 |
It's funny, Telson runs around like chicken little screaming about how the ultra-right-wingers are ruling this world. What he doesn't understand is that ultra-left-wingers (like him) are just as dangerous as ultra-right-wingers (like Hitler). When are you going to wake up and realize that YOU are the one who has been brainwashed? | ||
| Dave (Maranelloman)
Advanced Member Username: Maranelloman Post Number: 3196 Registered: 1-2002 |
Keep backpedaling and changing the subject, Telson. Keep scurrying out of the light. The more you struggle, the tighter the noose gets. Jon Kofod, Bill Hart, KDS, and I have successfully made you    | ||
| wm hart (Whart)
Intermediate Member Username: Whart Post Number: 1705 Registered: 12-2001 |
I am not an economist and generally believe that the cycles we go through are larger, and determined by more factors than a single administration or set of policies.It seems like alot of the criticism aimed at Bush is based on wishful thinking; the desire to go back to the time when we had a booming, but (falsely inflated by its own hype) dot.com economy, and dealt with the international community through the classic Clintonesque device of avoiding confrontation and hard decisions. Even Clinton advocates tend to rationalize his legacy by characterizing it as "harmless." But, regardless of party affiliation, i, for one, do not want our country to be led by a schmoozing adolescent. Bush may make some missteps, but at least he is dealing with the rest of the world as if he means it. And, given the hostility toward the US, we aren't going to win friends and allies simply by being "nice." Saying that our problems result from this administration' decisions ignores the legacy of the Clinton years. | ||
| Telson (Pitbull_trader)
Junior Member Username: Pitbull_trader Post Number: 197 Registered: 8-2003 |
"Considering that 75% of Wall Street can't predict the stock market correctly..." hehe Hi Jon, thanks for that Greenspan source. I really wish that more conservatives would speak out against the lunacy, as I've said a couple of times the issues I have aren't with conservatives, its with Bush and his neoconservatives. Best, | ||
| Telson (Pitbull_trader)
Junior Member Username: Pitbull_trader Post Number: 196 Registered: 8-2003 |
Dave, lol, what exactly are you trying to tell us? The country has really woken up to the fact that Bush is totally incapable of delivering on national security, the total chaos and anarchy in both Iraq and Afghanistan plus all the deaths for nothing but lies will suffice to kick Bush out of the White House and hopefully into the jail cell he belongs in. Besides, why not first agree that KDS is a pathetic liar, as I have proven with the links I posted where his story changes in the time span of less than a month because he isn't even able to remember his most simplistic lies? | ||
| Jon P. Kofod (95f355c)
Intermediate Member Username: 95f355c Post Number: 1134 Registered: 8-2001 |
Telson, With all due respect, Ackerlof is..... a) One of the most liberal economists around (and there aren't that many liberal economists) b) Is employed by one of the most liberal educational institutions in the country and one that houses most of the very few liberal economists c) Married to Janet Yellen who also works at UC Berkley and was one of Clinton's liberal economics advisors d) Got his Noble prize for asymmetric information, which has little relevance about Iraq or Bush. His statements are about as ground breaking and shocking as listening to any other Democrat blast Bush. As for his claim that Bush Sr's tax hike helped balance the budget that is total baloney. And as far as the CBO is concerned with their predictions of the dividend tax cut on stock market growth. CUT ME A BREAK..... They can't predict anything accurately at all, whether it be growth, the deficit, unemployment. The CBO is where most of the DUMB economists and accountants get employment because no one wants them. Hell Clinton's staff didn't even project a surplus in his first term. Considering that 75% of Wall Street can't predict the stock market correctly you actually think the Congressional Budget Office CAN??????????? Past administrations from the time of Alexander Hamilton have on the average run responsible budgetary policies What damn planet is he living on???????? Name me one responsible administration that had good fiscal budget policies. Government and good fiscal budget policies is a PARADOX. Kind of like HONEST POLITICIAN. Some of what he says is correct and as you know I didn't support the war and felt that we shouldn't be spending $87 billion in Iraq. My point is simply that you seem to post stuff that comes from the liberal side. Most of the people, as you can see, on this board are more conservative and don't trust your liberal sources. Why don't find some conservative sources knocking Bush or the war. I am a conservative who has done so. There are other's out there who are conservative that share some or the views you keep posting here. For instance just this past weekend Allan Greenspan presented a speech in which he basically stated that the war in Iraq brought the economy to a standstill and hurt the recovery. Maybe some of the conservatives on this board will give your views more thrift if it comes from one of their own. See Bloomberg: http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000006&sid=aK90yq4L.AHw&refer=home Regards, Jon P. Kofod 1995 F355 Challenge #23 www.flatoutracing.net | ||
| Dave (Maranelloman)
Advanced Member Username: Maranelloman Post Number: 3194 Registered: 1-2002 |
Ah, the little girl, caught out in the light, gets even more shrill & obvious. Here, I will pull a Telson: DETROIT - Democratic presidential hopefuls, led by star-spangled veterans John Kerry and Wesley Clark, are trying to turn President Bush's prosecution of the war on terrorism into a liability. But even as the nine candidates debated Sunday over who would make a better commander in chief, party regulars warned that the emphasis on foreign policy and military service will backfire unless the contenders articulate their own vision. "There's a huge credibility gap our party has on national security � not because we don't have enough military medals, but because we have no plan of action," said Democratic strategist Donna Brazile. Bush may be increasingly vulnerable as American soldiers continue to die in Iraq � 345 at last count � and Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein remain at large. But public opinion has long shown that voters prefer Republicans to Democrats on defense issues � something the current crop of contenders is hoping to change. The nine Democrats met on a stage in Detroit at a forum sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus Institute and Fox News Channel. Foreign policy dominated the debate. Lieberman, an early and aggressive supporter of the war, said Clark had taken "six different positions on whether going to war was a good idea. It took him four days to decide" his position on Bush's recent call for $87 billion in aid to Iraq and Afghanistan the senator added. Clark said he had been "entirely consistent" in opposing the war. Lieberman also accused several of his rivals for being inconsistent by voting to support the war yet opposing Bush's request for postwar funding. Kerry rebutted that charge by invoking his service in the Vietnam War. Addressing Lieberman, he said he had "seared into me an experience you don't have, and that is being one of the troops on the front line when the policy has gone wrong." The Massachusetts senator wasn't the only one to stress his military experience. Clark, a retired four-star Army general, said that after fighting in Vietnam, he "came home on a stretcher." "I think Clark needs to do more than just flaunt his four stars," said Waring Howe Jr., a member of the Democratic National Committee from South Carolina, an early voting state with a large population of veterans. "If he wants to be president, he has to talk more about domestic policy and not just simply rest his hopes on foreign policy," Howe said. Kerry sharply attacked Dean's proposal to repeal all of Bush's tax cuts. He said that would mean middle-class taxpayers would lose a child tax credit, as well as resume paying a so-called marriage penalty again. He referred to an Iowa family that he said would have to pay $2,178 in higher taxes if Dean's program went into effect. Kerry favors repealing the portion of Bush's tax cuts that benefit the wealthy, but not the balance of the reductions. Given the chance to speak moments later, Dean lectured Kerry, "If you're going to defend the president's tax cuts and you're going to defend the war, I frankly don't think we can beat Bush by being Bush-lite." See how it's done, troll? You CAN cut & paste stories that contain information that you agree with, and that you don't. Just like I did on my very first try. | ||
| Telson (Pitbull_trader)
Junior Member Username: Pitbull_trader Post Number: 195 Registered: 8-2003 |
KDS, you must be totally psycho: The laughable pics you posted demonstrate, if anything, even more your amazing stupidity, KDS. You claim to have been an intelligence officer, and post pics of yourself (or someone else, even, who is to know in the days of photoshop) in the DESERT SAND??????? ROFLMAO WHAT THE HELL IS THAT SUPPOSED TO PROVE ? The good thing is, the stupidity of these rightwing extremist foot soldiers of Bush is what inevitably leads to their exposure as spinning or even, as here, downright lying frauds: Here is what KDS, in his inimitably childish but all too transparent bragging efforts to exchange hype for substance, posted first, where he first claimed to have been an INTELLIGENCE AGENT: "I was an intelligence officer in the military for 6 years, so I have no problem with the other issues of this debate...." Kds Post Number 260, Monday, October 06 http://www.ferrarichat.com/discus/messages/132929 /324718.html#POST326816 And then in a much later thread the story KDS was dishing us up totally changes: "I served as my regimental intelligence officer for 2 out of my 6 years in the forces..." Kds Post Number 334, Tuesday, October 21 http://www.ferrarichat.com/discus/messages /132929/335915.html?1066834899 KDS, too stupid to remember his own lies. QED | ||
| Dave (Maranelloman)
Advanced Member Username: Maranelloman Post Number: 3193 Registered: 1-2002 |
Thank you for proving my point, troll. Had you done one second or research in between acting like a shrill little girl, you would have learned that Mr. Bush is NOT my idol. I am a Libertarian. And you have proven once & for all what you are. Thanks for so easily falling into my ideological trap for you. KDS was 100% spot-on. | ||
| Kds (Kds)
Member Username: Kds Post Number: 384 Registered: 5-2003 |
Telson..... I am still waiting patiently, and without fear, for the "online mob" to line up and support your accustions that I am a lair with respect to your allegations. I have requested that this happen on 2 different occasions after posting my photos and written rebuttals to you and it has not happened. I will ask once again, here on this thread, for that to take place. Until then.......touche !!! Dave.... Thank you. Ernesto.... You are doing quite well here as he cannot rebut you with logic, facts and reason and will steadfastly refuse to answer because you are correct. He apparently has not been programmed by his handlers yet to respond with direct thought. Anyways, gotta go to work now. | ||
| Telson (Pitbull_trader)
Junior Member Username: Pitbull_trader Post Number: 194 Registered: 8-2003 |
Dave, lol, I guess the heat is really starting to affect the rightwing extremist Bush lovers like yourself, what? Hard to accept your idol is a barbarian and a war criminal who is on his way out, what ? | ||
| Telson (Pitbull_trader)
Junior Member Username: Pitbull_trader Post Number: 193 Registered: 8-2003 |
Ernesto, Saddam was NO threat, did NOT attack us on 9-11, and had NO ties to alQaeda, yet we ignore what really threatens us to go off on a wild goose chase, a personal Bush family vendetta. Look, for the 3rd time here on the thread, even the US administration admitted that Saddam was NO threat, and that WMD's were just an excuse to start a war that is gloriously back firing on us, happily demonstrating our incompetence to the world while seriously compromising our security. What part of that do you find hard to understand ? | ||
| Dave (Maranelloman)
Advanced Member Username: Maranelloman Post Number: 3192 Registered: 1-2002 |
Telson, you must be joking. You are a liar, and I have posetd proof that you are a sick and mentally totally twisted liar. What part of that don't you understand now again? Yet in an incredible piece of SPIN you defend the indefensible. You STILL worship that scumbag Soros which only demonstrated your complete lack of knowledge about financial markets ? Really. And regardless of your opinion of KDS, he was spot-on, and that's what made you into a shrill little girl, scared of being found out for what she is. Had he been wrong, you would have merely ignored him or laughed at him. Study a little psychology sometime, instead of cutting & pasting only stuff that agrees with your shrill, mean-spirited, hate-Bush-at-all-costs, partisan prattle. | ||
| Ernesto (T88power)
Intermediate Member Username: T88power Post Number: 1830 Registered: 2-2001 |
Hitler also wasn't a "threat." He had non-agression pacts with his neighboring countries. That is until he invaded them. Just like Iraq, when they attacked Iran. Then they attacked Kuwait. Are you on the same planet as the rest of us? Pick up a history book and READ something instead of just blindly cutting and pasting articles. "As you have written many times?" LOL... you dont WRITE anything... You are just SPAMMING this site with political garbage from YOUR POINT OF VIEW. Thats all. Ernesto | ||
| Telson (Pitbull_trader)
Junior Member Username: Pitbull_trader Post Number: 191 Registered: 8-2003 |
Dave, you must be joking. KDS is a liar, and I have posted proof that he is a sick and mentally totally twisted liar. What part of that don't you understand now again? Yet in an incredible piece of SPIN you defend the indefensible. You STILL upset because your laughable effort to slander Soros in the billionaire thread only demonstrated your complete lack of knowledge about financial markets ? Really. | ||
| Telson (Pitbull_trader)
Junior Member Username: Pitbull_trader Post Number: 190 Registered: 8-2003 |
Ernesto, Saddam was NOT a threat, hence there was absolutely NO reason to attack him, he who was OUR former GREAT ALLY, its as simple as that. And as I have written many times, the administration themselves admitted that: "Colin Powell Secretary of State. "But if the heart of your question is whether or not we see any complicity between Iraq and the events of Sept. 11 through Al Qaeda, we do not have that connection."" http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline /DailyNews/powell_transcript021112.html "Powell 2001: WMDs Not Significant Asked about the sanctions placed on Iraq, which were then under review at the Security Council, Powell said the measures were working. In fact, he added, "(Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq, and these are policies that we are going to keep in place." http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/4119353 .html "On May 15 2001, Powell went further and said that Saddam Hussein had not been able to "build his military back up or to develop weapons of mass destruction" for "the last 10 years". America, he said, had been successful in keeping him "in a box"." http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/content_objectid=13434081 _method=full_siteid=50143_headline=-THE%2DBIG% 2DLIE-name_page.html "Condoleeza Rice 2001: "Saddam does not control the northern part of the country," she said. "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."" http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/content_ objectid=13434081_method=full_siteid=50143 _headline=-THE%2DBIG%2DLIE-nam_page.html Wolfowitz, Prince of Darkness in Bushs evil Kingdom and, more importantly, the brains and chief strategist behind Bush's undemocratic neoconservative revolution, frankly admitted that WMD's were no more than a convenient excuse for war: "WMD Just a Convenient Excuse for War, Admits Wolfowitz By David Usborne The Independent Friday 30 May 2003 The Bush administration focused on alleged weapons of mass destruction as the primary justification for toppling Saddam Hussein by force because it was politically convenient, a top-level official at the Pentagon has acknowledged. The extraordinary admission comes in an interview with Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Defence Secretary, in the July issue of the magazine Vanity Fair. "For bureaucratic reasons we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on," Mr Wolfowitz tells the magazine. The comments suggest that, even for the US administration, the logic that was presented for going to war may have been an empty shell. They come to light, moreover, just two days after Mr Wolfowitz's immediate boss, Donald Rumsfeld, the Defence Secretary, conceded for the first time that the arms might never be found." http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/053103A.shtml Of course, way before the war, Brent Scowcroft was saying that a war agaisnt Iraq would be unfounded and counter productive: "There is scant evidence to tie Saddam to terrorist organizations, and even less to the Sept. 11 attacks. Indeed Saddam's goals have little in common with the terrorists who threaten us, and there is little incentive for him to make common cause with them. Don't attack Saddam. It would undermine our antiterror efforts." Brent Scowcroft National Security Advisor to Presidents Gerald Ford & George Bush senior Wall Street Journal, 15 Aug 2002 QED | ||
| Dave (Maranelloman)
Advanced Member Username: Maranelloman Post Number: 3190 Registered: 1-2002 |
Looks like KDS scored a direct hit. Telson the bullshit trader always gets 10 times as shrill, emotional, girl-like, and full of name-calling when someone gets his number. And KDS got his number 100%. Whatsa matter, Telson? Can't stand it when the shoe is on the other foot, so you have to resort to the same "blame the messenger" name-calling crap as you always do? | ||
| Ernesto (T88power)
Intermediate Member Username: T88power Post Number: 1829 Registered: 2-2001 |
A. If he used WMD during the war, his credibility in certain circles would have disappeared. There were still moronic countries like France and Germany supporting this wacko, and even those countries would have been forced to turn against him were Saddam to use WMD. B. So, if any ARE found, then your position is that they were not a threat? LOL.... C. Apparently you have learned nothing from history. You have not learned that these crazy dictators who have a proven track record of hostility and invasion and ethnic cleansing have to be removed from power BEFORE they do something even more terrible? Or, you'd rather do it afterwards, after many thousands more are dead? Pick up a history book and read all about Hitler and other rulers who could have been stopped early. If we dont learn from history and our mistakes in dealing with these kind of people, then we are doomed. Just like the moron Clinton who should have taken UBL out and invaded Afghanistan five years, proof or no proof. Ernesto | ||
| Telson (Pitbull_trader)
Junior Member Username: Pitbull_trader Post Number: 189 Registered: 8-2003 |
Oh, KDS, our pathetic BOARD LIAR and EMBELLISHER in action again. Here is what KDS, in his inimitably childish but all too transparent bragging efforts to exchange hype for substance, posted first, where he first claimed to have been an INTELLIGENCE AGENT, lol: "I was an intelligence officer in the military for 6 years, so I have no problem with the other issues of this debate...." Kds Post Number 260, Monday, October 06 http://www.ferrarichat.com/discus/messages/132929 /324718.html#POST326816 And then in a much later thread the story KDS was dishing us up totally changes: "I served as my regimental intelligence officer for 2 out of my 6 years in the forces..." Kds Post Number 334, Tuesday, October 21 http://www.ferrarichat.com/discus/messages /132929/335915.html?1066834899 KDS, our fraud, fact twister and spinner par excellence, too stupid to remember his own lies, living in never never land. | ||
| Telson (Pitbull_trader)
Junior Member Username: Pitbull_trader Post Number: 188 Registered: 8-2003 |
Ernesto, A: I don't believe anything will be found, if Saddam had had them he would have used them when he was fighting the fight of his life. You don't collect WMD's like Art, nice to look at, but otherwise useless. B: Even if sthg is found, it could hardly be the HUGE and IMMINENT THREAT to the USA Bush was promising us with great certainty. C: By going it alone, totally ignoring the REAL threat that was facing us, international terrorism and AL Qaeda, by overextending the forces, alienating most allies, Bush has succeeded in only one thing, severely compromising the security of the USA, so his head really needs to roll. | ||
| Kds (Kds)
Member Username: Kds Post Number: 383 Registered: 5-2003 |
Ernesto and others...... What you are going to see as the 2004 election nears is more of these leftist spammers doing this sort of thing to any and all bulletin boards that they can find. This is exactly what happened during the mid-term elections over a year ago. And, as soon as the Democrats were kicked out.....they mysteriously disappeared from the boards. They have already "infected" a couple of the non-political boards that I participate in, and once they are found out to be "incapable" of carrying a conversation on their own to defend their position without resorting to C&P's, they become roundly ignored. It takes about 2-3 months for the community to catch on in most cases. What tends to happen at that time is the troll will start to wish people happy birthday or make warm fuzzy comments on a few threads to try and ingratiate himself into the community, and once that fails, the C&P's will become even more vile and hate filled as the troll becomes desperate for attention when he realises what is happening. Watch this space and you'll see what I mean. The clue usually will be the tag line for the site www.commondreams.org which, if you were to look at it and read it as I have, should actually be named www.communistdreams.org."Useful idiots" was the name coined for these folks by Lenin IIRC. | ||
| Ernesto (T88power)
Intermediate Member Username: T88power Post Number: 1828 Registered: 2-2001 |
So if WMD are found, you will finally shut up?!!?! Is that it?? Ernesto | ||
| Telson (Pitbull_trader)
Junior Member Username: Pitbull_trader Post Number: 186 Registered: 8-2003 |
whilst your posts are informative and in my personal opinion correct, wont be putting you on my ignore list will just be ignoring your political posts (have you ever thought of venting your frustration by running for some sort of political post?) Andrew, I just believe that Bush is the most evil, incompetent and dangerous Prez this country has ever had, and that if we don't get rid of him pronto this country might change to the point where everything we ever stood for will have disappeared. Best, | ||
| Telson (Pitbull_trader)
Junior Member Username: Pitbull_trader Post Number: 185 Registered: 8-2003 |
LOL, Ernesto ! I found my info doing a BOARD SEARCH of some old threads, lol, besides, what the hell does that have to do with anything ?? As for your posting articles, lol, buddy, where are the WMDS, what ??? That is the only question people who supported this war atrocity should answer right now. LOL THIS was Bushs rationale for war, remember ? "Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes." - Ari Fleischer, March 21 2003 "We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad." - Donald Rumsfeld, March 30 2003 "Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons." - George W. Bush, September 12 2002 "Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent." - George W. Bush, State of the Union address, January 28 2003 "We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have." - George Bush, February 8 2003 "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." - George Bush, March 17 2003 8/26/02 Cheney: Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us. (Remarks to VFW, 8/26/03). 9/02 Rumsfeld: Rumsfeld told Congress that Saddam�s "regime has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons, including VX, sarin, cyclosarin and mustard gas�� (U.S. News 6/03). 9/19/2002 Rumsfeld: There are a number of terrorist states pursuing weapons of mass destruction -- Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, just to name but a few. But no terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. (Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing Transcript, 9/19/2002) 1/28/03 Bush: �The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.� (The State of the Union Address, 1/28/03) 2/05/03 Powell: �Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough agent to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets.� (Remarks, U.N., 2/05/03) 2/08/03 Bush: "We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have." (Radio Address, 2/08/03) 3/16/03 Cheney: �We believe [Saddam] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.� (The Washington Post, 5/20/03) 3/17/03 Bush: "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." (Address, D.C., 3/17/03) 3/30/03 Rumsfeld: "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." (Remarks, ABC, 3/30/03) 10/06/02 Bush: Saddam Hussein could strike without notice and inflict "massive and sudden horror" on America. (AP, 10/6/02) "Expectations shrink in hunt for Saddam's weapons By John Diamond and Bill Nichols, USA TODAY Posted 9/25/2003 11:27 PM WASHINGTON - U.S. search teams have dramatically scaled back their expectations for finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Months of searching have produced no announced discoveries that would validate the bulk of the allegations that fed its rationale for going to war." http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington /2003-09-25-wmd-usat_x.htm | ||
| Andrew-Phillip Goalen (Andrewg)
Member Username: Andrewg Post Number: 476 Registered: 9-2002 |
Telson, I agree with Doody, whilst your posts are informative and in my personal opinion correct, this is after all a Ferrari / car forum not a political / debating forum wont be putting you on my ignore list will just be ignoring your political posts (have you ever thought of venting your frustration by running for some sort of political post?) | ||
| Telson (Pitbull_trader)
Junior Member Username: Pitbull_trader Post Number: 184 Registered: 8-2003 |
Doody, I'm betting that the extreme rightwingers who are really Bush brainwashed are in a pretty small minority here, just like in real life, and that enough others of the silent majority are more than interested in these posts. If nevertheless a chosen few choose to put me on ignore, well, c'est la vie. Best, | ||
| Ernesto (T88power)
Intermediate Member Username: T88power Post Number: 1827 Registered: 2-2001 |
HAHAHAHAHA!!!! LOL Telson... I post disinformation and you post facts? For every "article" you post saying one thing, I can post another saying the direct opposite. You go on and keep believing the crap you spew out. By the way, let me get this straight. You came to FChat seeking help on a car, and the question was "quickly answered." Instead of posting a Thank You saying how great this site is for helping you with your problem, you decided instead to stay and constantly bombard it with your useless propaganda machine? Now, there's gratitude! Ernesto PS. I can't wait for the new site to start! | ||
| Telson (Pitbull_trader)
Junior Member Username: Pitbull_trader Post Number: 183 Registered: 8-2003 |
LOL, Ernesto, what utter BS and disinformation worthy of a communist dictatorship, or indeed the Bush regime, FACT is, there was NO connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam, nor was a single of the other allegations Bush directed at Saddam anything but a big massive lie. Al Qaeda flooded into Iraq as a RESULT of this imbecilic war. "Colin Powell Secretary of State. "But if the heart of your question is whether or not we see any complicity between Iraq and the events of Sept. 11 through Al Qaeda, we do not have that connection."" http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/ DailyNews/powell_transcript021112.html "Powell 2001: WMDs Not Significant Asked about the sanctions placed on Iraq, which were then under review at the Security Council, Powell said the measures were working. In fact, he added, "(Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq, and these are policies that we are going to keep in place." http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/ 4119353.html "On May 15 2001, Powell went further and said that Saddam Hussein had not been able to "build his military back up or to develop weapons of mass destruction" for "the last 10 years". America, he said, had been successful in keeping him "in a box"." http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/content _objectid=13434081_method=full_siteid=50143_ headline=-THE%2DBIG%2DLIE-name_page.html "Condoleeza Rice 2001: "Saddam does not control the northern part of the country," she said. "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."" http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/content _objectid=13434081_method=full_siteid=50143_ headline=-THE%2DBIG%2DLIE-name_page.html Wolfowitz, Prince of Darkness in Bushs evil Kingdom and, more importantly, the brains and chief strategist behind Bush's undemocratic neoconservative revolution, frankly admitted that WMD's were no more than a convenient excuse for war: "WMD Just a Convenient Excuse for War, Admits Wolfowitz By David Usborne The Independent Friday 30 May 2003 The Bush administration focused on alleged weapons of mass destruction as the primary justification for toppling Saddam Hussein by force because it was politically convenient, a top-level official at the Pentagon has acknowledged. The extraordinary admission comes in an interview with Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Defence Secretary, in the July issue of the magazine Vanity Fair. "For bureaucratic reasons we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on," Mr Wolfowitz tells the magazine. The comments suggest that, even for the US administration, the logic that was presented for going to war may have been an empty shell. They come to light, moreover, just two days after Mr Wolfowitz's immediate boss, Donald Rumsfeld, the Defence Secretary, conceded for the first time that the arms might never be found." http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/053103A.shtml | ||
| Mr. Doody (Doody)
Intermediate Member Username: Doody Post Number: 2020 Registered: 11-2001 |
you are correct telson - we can always choose to not read it. do keep in mind though that the new software has an "ignore" list. if you post stuff like this that is "excessive" in the view of some folks, they'll put you on their ignore list, and when/if you do have useful things to say, they'll not be seen. this is a ferrari board. we try to keep it at least car related if possible. i appreciate and respect your strong political beliefs - just know that you may end up on some (to many) folks' ignore lists. doody. | ||
| Thomas I (Wax)
Member Username: Wax Post Number: 716 Registered: 7-2003 |
The way I see it, if some one is not interested in F-Chat, they don't really have to post it in F-Chat, do they. Oops, I stole your lines, El Snot - How unoriginal of me. | ||
| Ernesto (T88power)
Intermediate Member Username: T88power Post Number: 1826 Registered: 2-2001 |
The Iraq -- Al Qaeda Connections By Richard Miniter Published 09/25/2003 Every day it seems another American soldier is killed in Iraq. These grim statistics have become a favorite of network news anchors and political chat show hosts. Nevermind that they mix deaths from accidents with actual battlefield casualties; or that the average is actually closer to one American death for every two days; or that enemy deaths far outnumber ours. What matters is the overall impression of mounting, pointless deaths. That is why is important to remember why we fight in Iraq -- and who we fight. Indeed, many of those sniping at U.S. troops are al Qaeda terrorists operating inside Iraq. And many of bin Laden's men were in Iraq prior to the liberation. A wealth of evidence on the public record -- from government reports and congressional testimony to news accounts from major newspapers -- attests to longstanding ties between bin Laden and Saddam going back to 1994. Those who try to whitewash Saddam's record don't dispute this evidence; they just ignore it. So let's review the evidence, all of it on the public record for months or years: * Abdul Rahman Yasin was the only member of the al Qaeda cell that detonated the 1993 World Trade Center bomb to remain at large in the Clinton years. He fled to Iraq. U.S. forces recently discovered a cache of documents in Tikrit, Saddam's hometown, that show that Iraq gave Mr. Yasin both a house and monthly salary. * Bin Laden met at least eight times with officers of Iraq's Special Security Organization, a secret police agency run by Saddam's son Qusay, and met with officials from Saddam's mukhabarat, its external intelligence service, according to intelligence made public by Secretary of State Colin Powell, who was speaking before the United Nations Security Council on February 6, 2003. * Sudanese intelligence officials told me that their agents had observed meetings between Iraqi intelligence agents and bin Laden starting in 1994, when bin Laden lived in Khartoum. * Bin Laden met the director of the Iraqi mukhabarat in 1996 in Khartoum, according to Mr. Powell. * An al Qaeda operative now held by the U.S. confessed that in the mid-1990s, bin Laden had forged an agreement with Saddam's men to cease all terrorist activities against the Iraqi dictator, Mr. Powell told the United Nations. * In 1999 the Guardian, a British newspaper, reported that Farouk Hijazi, a senior officer in Iraq's mukhabarat, had journeyed deep into the icy mountains near Kandahar, Afghanistan, in December 1998 to meet with al Qaeda men. Mr. Hijazi is "thought to have offered bin Laden asylum in Iraq," the Guardian reported. * In October 2000, another Iraqi intelligence operative, Salah Suleiman, was arrested near the Afghan border by Pakistani authorities, according to Jane's Foreign Report, a respected international newsletter. Jane's reported that Suleiman was shuttling between Iraqi intelligence and Ayman al Zawahiri, now al Qaeda's No. 2 man. (Why are all of those meetings significant? The London Observer reports that FBI investigators cite a captured al Qaeda field manual in Afghanistan, which "emphasizes the value of conducting discussions about pending terrorist attacks face to face, rather than by electronic means.") * As recently as 2001, Iraq's embassy in Pakistan was used as a "liaison" between the Iraqi dictator and al Qaeda, Mr. Powell told the United Nations. * Spanish investigators have uncovered documents seized from Yusuf Galan -- who is charged by a Spanish court with being "directly involved with the preparation and planning" of the Sept. 11 attacks -- that show the terrorist was invited to a party at the Iraqi embassy in Madrid. The invitation used his "al Qaeda nom de guerre," London's Independent reports. * An Iraqi defector to Turkey, known by his cover name as "Abu Mohammed," told Gwynne Roberts of the Sunday Times of London that he saw bin Laden's fighters in camps in Iraq in 1997. At the time, Mohammed was a colonel in Saddam's Fedayeen. He described an encounter at Salman Pak, the training facility southeast of Baghdad. At that vast compound run by Iraqi intelligence, Muslim militants trained to hijack planes with knives -- on a full-size Boeing 707. Col. Mohammed recalls his first visit to Salman Pak this way: "We were met by Colonel Jamil Kamil, the camp manager, and Major Ali Hawas. I noticed that a lot of people were queuing for food. (The major) said to me: 'You'll have nothing to do with these people. They are Osama bin Laden's group and the PKK and Mojahedin-e Khalq.'" * In 1998, Abbas al-Janabi, a longtime aide to Saddam's son Uday, defected to the West. At the time, he repeatedly told reporters that there was a direct connection between Iraq and al Qaeda. *The Sunday Times found a Saddam loyalist in a Kurdish prison who claims to have been Dr. Zawahiri's bodyguard during his 1992 visit with Saddam in Baghdad. Dr. Zawahiri was a close associate of bin Laden at the time and was present at the founding of al Qaeda in 1989. * Following the defeat of the Taliban, almost two dozen bin Laden associates "converged on Baghdad and established a base of operations there," Mr. Powell told the United Nations in February 2003. From their Baghdad base, the secretary said, they supervised the movement of men, materiel and money for al Qaeda's global network. * In 2001, an al Qaeda member "bragged that the situation in Iraq was 'good,'" according to intelligence made public by Mr. Powell. * That same year, Saudi Arabian border guards arrested two al Qaeda members entering the kingdom from Iraq. * Abu Musaab al-Zarqawi oversaw an al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan, Mr. Powell told the United Nations. His specialty was poisons. Wounded in fighting with U.S. forces, he sought medical treatment in Baghdad in May 2002. When Zarqawi recovered, he restarted a training camp in northern Iraq. Zarqawi's Iraq cell was later tied to the October 2002 murder of Lawrence Foley, an official of the U.S. Agency for International Development, in Amman, Jordan. The captured assassin confessed that he received orders and funds from Zarqawi's cell in Iraq, Mr. Powell said. His accomplice escaped to Iraq. *Zarqawi met with military chief of al Qaeda, Mohammed Ibrahim Makwai (aka Saif al-Adel) in Iran in February 2003, according to intelligence sources cited by the Washington Post. * Mohammad Atef, the head of al Qaeda's military wing until the U.S. killed him in Afghanistan in November 2001, told a senior al Qaeda member now in U.S. custody that the terror network needed labs outside of Afghanistan to manufacture chemical weapons, Mr. Powell said. "Where did they go, where did they look?" said the secretary. "They went to Iraq." * Abu Abdullah al-Iraqi was sent to Iraq by bin Laden to purchase poison gases several times between 1997 and 2000. He called his relationship with Saddam's regime "successful," Mr. Powell told the United Nations. * Mohamed Mansour Shahab, a smuggler hired by Iraq to transport weapons to bin Laden in Afghanistan, was arrested by anti-Hussein Kurdish forces in May, 2000. He later told his story to American intelligence and a reporter for the New Yorker magazine. * Documents found among the debris of the Iraqi Intelligence Center show that Baghdad funded the Allied Democratic Forces, a Ugandan terror group led by an Islamist cleric linked to bin Laden. According to a London's Daily Telegraph, the organization offered to recruit "youth to train for the jihad" at a "headquarters for international holy warrior network" to be established in Baghdad. * Mullah Melan Krekar, ran a terror group (the Ansar al-Islam) linked to both bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Mr. Krekar admitted to a Kurdish newspaper that he met bin Laden in Afghanistan and other senior al Qaeda officials. His acknowledged meetings with bin Laden go back to 1988. When he organized Ansar al Islam in 2001 to conduct suicide attacks on Americans, "three bin Laden operatives showed up with a gift of $300,000 'to undertake jihad,'" Newsday reported. Mr. Krekar is now in custody in the Netherlands. His group operated in portion of northern Iraq loyal to Saddam Hussein -- and attacked independent Kurdish groups hostile to Saddam. A spokesman for the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan told a United Press International correspondent that Mr. Krekar's group was funded by "Saddam Hussein's regime in Baghdad." * After October 2001, hundreds of al Qaeda fighters are believed to have holed up in the Ansar al-Islam's strongholds inside northern Iraq. Some skeptics dismiss the emerging evidence of a longstanding link between Iraq and al Qaeda by contending that Saddam ran a secular dictatorship hated by Islamists like bin Laden. In fact, there are plenty of "Stalin-Roosevelt" partnerships between international terrorists and Muslim dictators. Saddam and bin Laden had common enemies, common purposes and interlocking needs. They shared a powerful hate for America and the Saudi royal family. They both saw the Gulf War as a turning point. Saddam suffered a crushing defeat which he had repeatedly vowed to avenge. Bin Laden regards the U.S. as guilty of war crimes against Iraqis and believes that non-Muslims shouldn't have military bases on the holy sands of Arabia. Al Qaeda's avowed goal for the past ten years has been the removal of American forces from Saudi Arabia, where they stood in harm's way solely to contain Saddam. The most compelling reason for bin Laden to work with Saddam is money. Al Qaeda operatives have testified in federal courts that the terror network was always desperate for cash. Senior employees fought bitterly about the $100 difference in pay between Egyptian and Saudis (the Egyptians made more). One al Qaeda member, who was connected to the 1998 embassy bombings, told a U.S. federal court how bitter he was that bin Laden could not pay for his pregnant wife to see a doctor. Bin Laden's personal wealth alone simply is not enough to support a profligate global organization. Besides, bin Laden's fortune is probably not as large as some imagine. Informed estimates put bin Laden's pre-Sept. 11, 2001 wealth at perhaps $30 million. $30 million is the budget of a small school district, not a global terror conglomerate. Meanwhile, Forbes estimated Saddam's personal fortune at $2 billion. So a common enemy, a shared goal and powerful need for cash seem to have forged an alliance between Saddam and bin Laden. CIA Director George Tenet recently told the Senate Intelligence Committee: "Iraq has in the past provided training in document forgery and bomb making to al Qaeda. It also provided training in poisons and gasses to two al Qaeda associates; one of these [al Qaeda] associates characterized the relationship as successful. Mr. Chairman, this information is based on a solid foundation of intelligence. It comes to us from credible and reliable sources. Much of it is corroborated by multiple sources." The Iraqis, who had the Third World's largest poison-gas operations prior to the Gulf War I, have perfected the technique of making hydrogen-cyanide gas, which the Nazis called Zyklon-B. In the hands of al Qaeda, this would be a fearsome weapon in an enclosed space -- like a suburban mall or subway station. http://www.techcentralstation.com/092503F.html | ||
| Telson (Pitbull_trader)
Junior Member Username: Pitbull_trader Post Number: 182 Registered: 8-2003 |
Well, the way I see it, if some one is not interested, they don't really have to read it, do they. Best, | ||
| Thomas I (Wax)
Member Username: Wax Post Number: 715 Registered: 7-2003 |
A simple link would have sufficed. "El Snot" and "Stolen" are anagrams for "Telson." Coincidentally, of course. | ||
| Andrew-Phillip Goalen (Andrewg)
Member Username: Andrewg Post Number: 475 Registered: 9-2002 |
thanks, I take that means no then? | ||
| Mr. Doody (Doody)
Intermediate Member Username: Doody Post Number: 2019 Registered: 11-2001 |
i don't mind occassional political amusement here, but i think perhaps you're taking it a bit far, telson. doody. | ||
| Telson (Pitbull_trader)
Junior Member Username: Pitbull_trader Post Number: 181 Registered: 8-2003 |
Andrew, the way I found this site was when I was doing a web search for a Ferrari related issue which was quickly answered by doing a board search. However, as I'm really not much of a board chatter, I'm limiting my time to Off Topic here. best, | ||
| Andrew-Phillip Goalen (Andrewg)
Member Username: Andrewg Post Number: 474 Registered: 9-2002 |
Telson, do you actually have any interest in Ferrari's ? not an insult just asking | ||
| Telson (Pitbull_trader)
Junior Member Username: Pitbull_trader Post Number: 179 Registered: 8-2003 |
"Published on Tuesday, July 29, 2003 US Nobel Laureate Slams Bush Gov't as "Worst" in American History American Nobel Prize laureate for Economics George A. Akerlof lashed out at the government of US President George W. Bush, calling it the "worst ever" in American history, the online site of the weekly Der Spiegel magazine reported Tuesday. "I think this is the worst government the US has ever had in its more than 200 years of history. It has engaged in extradordinarily irresponsible policies not only in foreign policy and economics but also in social and environmental policy," said the 2001 Nobel Prize laureate who teaches economics at the University of California in Berkeley. "This is not normal government policy. Now is the time for (American) people to engage in civil disobedience. I think it's time to protest - as much as possible," the 61-year-old scholar added. Akerlof has been recognized for his research that borrows from sociology, psychology, anthropology and other fields to determine economic influences and outcomes. His areas of expertise include macro-economics, monetary policy and poverty. Text of Der Spiegel interview by Matthias Streitz SPIEGEL ONLINE: Professor Akerlof, according to recent official projections, the US federal deficit will reach $455 billion this fiscal year. That's the largest ever in dollar terms, but according to the President's budget director, it's still manageable. Do you agree? George A. Akerlof: In the long term, a deficit of this magnitude is not manageable. We are moving into the period when, beginning around 2010, baby boomers are going to be retiring. That is going to put a severe strain on services like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. This is the time when we should be saving. SPIEGEL ONLINE: So it would be necessary to run a budget surplus instead? Akerlof: That would probably be impossible in the current situation. There's the expenditure for the war in Iraq, which I consider irresponsible. But there's also a recession and a desire to invigorate the economy through fiscal stimulus, which is quite legitimate. That's why we actually do need a deficit in the short term - but certainly not the type of deficit we have now. SPIEGEL ONLINE: Because it's not created by investment, but to a large extent by cutting taxes? Akerlof: A short-term tax benefit for the poor would actually be a reasonable stimulus. Then, the money would almost certainly be spent. But the current and future deficit is a lot less stimulatory than it could be. Our administration is just throwing the money away. First, we should have fiscal stimulus that is sharply aimed at the current downturn. But this deficit continues far into the future, as the bulk of the tax cuts can be expected to continue indefinitely. The Administration is giving us red ink as far as the eye can see, and these permanent aspects outweigh the short-term stimulatory effects. SPIEGEL ONLINE: And secondly, you disagree with giving tax relief primarily to wealthier Americans. The GOP argues that those people deserve it for working hard. Akerlof: The rich don't need the money and are a lot less likely to spend it - they will primarily increase their savings. Remember that wealthier families have done extremely well in the US in the past twenty years, whereas poorer ones have done quite badly. So the redistributive effects of this administration's tax policy are going in the exactly wrong direction. The worst and most indefensible of those cuts are those in dividend taxation - this overwhelmingly helps very wealthy people. SPIEGEL ONLINE: The President claims that dividend tax reform supports the stock market - and helps the economy as a whole to grow. Akerlof: That's totally unrealistic. Standard formulas from growth models suggest that that effect will be extremely small. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has come to a similar conclusion. So, even a sympathetic treatment finds that this argument is simply not correct. SPIEGEL ONLINE: When campaigning for an even-larger tax cut earlier this year, Mr. Bush promised that it would create 1.4 million jobs. Was that reasonable? Akerlof: The tax cut will have some positive impact on job creation, although, as I mentioned, there is very little bang for the buck. There are very negative long-term consequences. The administration, when speaking about the budget, has unrealistically failed to take into account a very large number of important items. As of March 2003, the CBO estimated that the surplus for the next decade would approximately reach one trillion dollars. But this projection assumes, among other questionable things, that spending until 2013 is going to be constant in real dollar terms. That has never been the case. And with the current tax cuts, a realistic estimate would be a deficit in excess of six trillion. SPIEGEL ONLINE: So the government's just bad at doing the correct math? Akerlof: There is a systematic reason. The government is not really telling the truth to the American people. Past administrations from the time of Alexander Hamilton have on the average run responsible budgetary policies. What we have here is a form of looting. SPIEGEL ONLINE: If so, why's the President still popular? Akerlof: For some reason the American people does not yet recognize the dire consequences of our government budgets. It's my hope that voters are going to see how irresponsible this policy is and are going to respond in 2004 and we're going to see a reversal. SPIEGEL ONLINE: What if that doesn't happen? Akerlof: Future generations and even people in ten years are going to face massive public deficits and huge government debt. Then we have a choice. We can be like a very poor country with problems of threatening bankruptcy. Or we're going to have to cut back seriously on Medicare and Social Security. So the money that is going overwhelmingly to the wealthy is going to be paid by cutting services for the elderly. And people depend on those. It's only among the richest 40 percent that you begin to get households who have sizeable fractions of their own retirement income. SPIEGEL ONLINE: Is there a possibility that the government, because of the scope of current deficits, will be more reluctant to embark on a new war? Akerlof: They would certainly have to think about debt levels, and military expenditure is already high. But if they seriously want to lead a war this will not be a large deterrent. You begin the war and ask for the money later. A more likely effect of the deficits is this: If there's another recession, we won't be able to engage in stimulatory fiscal spending to maintain full employment. Until now, there's been a great deal of trust in the American government. Markets knew that, if there is a current deficit, it will be repaid. The government has wasted that resource. SPIEGEL ONLINE: Which, in addition, might drive up interest rates quite significantly? Akerlof: The deficit is not going to have significant effects on short-term interest rates. Rates are pretty low, and the Fed will manage to keep them that way. In the mid term it could be a serious problem. When rates rise, the massive debt it's going to bite much more. SPIEGEL ONLINE: Why is it that the Bush family seems to specialize in running up deficits? The second-largest federal deficit in absolute terms, $290 billion, occurred in 1991, during the presidency of George W. Bush's father. Akerlof: That may be, but Bush's father committed a great act of courage by actually raising taxes. He wasn't always courageous, but this was his best public service. It was the first step to getting the deficit under control during the Clinton years. It was also a major factor in Bush's losing the election. SPIEGEL ONLINE: It seems that the current administration has politicised you in an unprecedented way. During the course of this year, you have, with other academics, signed two public declarations of protest. One against the tax cuts, the other against waging unilateral preventive war on Iraq. Akerlof: I think this is the worst government the US has ever had in its more than 200 years of history. It has engaged in extraordinarily irresponsible policies not only in foreign and economic but also in social and environmental policy. This is not normal government policy. Now is the time for people to engage in civil disobedience. SPIEGEL ONLINE: Of what kind? Akerlof: I don't know yet. But I think it's time to protest - as much as possible. SPIEGEL ONLINE: Would you consider joining Democratic administration as an adviser, as your colleague Joseph Stiglitz did? Akerlof: As you know my wife was in the last administration, and she did very well. She is probably much better suited for public service. But anything I'll be asked to do by a new administration I'd be happy to do. SPIEGEL ONLINE: You've mentioned the term civil disobedience a minute ago. That term was made popular by the author Henry D. Thoreau, who actually advised people not to pay taxes as a means of resistance. You wouldn't call for that, would you? Akerlof: No. I think the one thing we should do is pay our taxes. Otherwise, it'll only make matters worse." http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0729-06.htm |