Deep Throat and Genocide

[CamB]

That is his legacy. He was a peacemaker. He was a lying, conniving, covering up peacemaker. He was not a lying, conniving drug addict like JFK, a lying, conniving war starter like LBJ, a lying, conniving seducer like Clinton -- a lying, conniving peacemaker. That is Nixon's kharma.

Hahahaha - that is possibly the most biased comment I think I've ever read. The whole article isn't credible because of it.

Racerbvd, your comments in this thread and other recent ones make me think the following - the day might come soon when you realise that, in your opinion, liberals and Democrats are responsible for all the world's evils... while republicans/conservatives do no wrong.

On this day, you reach a crossroads - continue to believe what is obviously impossible, or try opening your mind to other possibilities.

And for the record, there are plenty of those on the left who think the same way as you appear to... just switching left and right.

[jyl]

Nixon was a complex man. He did some good things. He did some bad things. Some of the bad things were very bad indeed, and needed to be stopped. Do you think that the President using secret operatives to illegally pursue his political rivals is something that we should just let happen? What the hell are you thinking?

[techweenie]

In the past year and a half, the right has tried desperately to rehabilitate Joe McCarthy and R. Nixon.

They have a whole new generation that knows nothing about these folks other than what the Limbaugh/Coulter axis tells them. Pretty funny, IMHO.

I wonder how beloved Nixon would be to neocons if they were aware that a national health care system was his dream?

[dd74]

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
Sadly, Ben uses his education and his intelligence to shade things in the direction he wishes the reader to go. I would not want him on my Trivial Pursuit team or near anything else I treasured.

What? Education and intelligence is supposed to be impartial?

[dd74]

Originally posted by techweenie
Don't forget Bush1, whose role in the creation of the Gulf War is clearer as time goes by.

-----------------
Transcript of Meeting Between Iraqi President, Saddam Hussein and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie. - July 25, 1990.

July 25, 1990 - Presidential Palace - Baghdad

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - I have direct instructions from President Bush to improve our relations with Iraq. We have considerable sympathy for your quest for higher oil prices, the immediate cause of your confrontation with Kuwait. (pause) As you know, I lived here for years and admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. We know you need funds. We understand that, and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. (pause) We can see that you have deployed massive numbers of troops in the south. Normally that would be none of our business, but when this happens in the context of your threats against Kuwait, then it would be reasonable for us to be concerned. For this reason, I have received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship - not confrontation - regarding your intentions: Why are your troops massed so very close to Kuwait's borders?

Saddam Hussein - As you know, for years now I have made every effort to reach a settlement on our dispute with Kuwait. There is to be a meeting in two days; I am prepared to give negotiations only this one more brief chance. (pause) When we (the Iraqis) meet (with the Kuwaitis) and we see there is hope, then nothing will happen. But if we are unable to find a solution, then it will be natural that Iraq will not accept death.

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - What solutions would be acceptable?

Saddam Hussein - If we could keep the whole of the Shatt al Arab - our strategic goal in our war with Iran - we will make concessions (to the Kuwaitis). But, if we are forced to choose between keeping half of the Shatt and the whole of Iraq (i.e., in SaddamƠs view, including Kuwait) then we will give up all of the Shatt to defend our claims on Kuwait to keep the whole of Iraq in the shape we wish it to be. (pause) What is the United States' opinion on this?

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America.

(Eight days later, Iraq invaded Kuwait)

And soon after, the U.S. kicked Iraq out of Kuwait. I don't understand your analogy here. Bush I was very clear with the Gulf War - which was get Iraq out of Kuwait. He even refused the demand (from Cheney, I think), that the U.S. go into Baghdad and topple Sadam. Possibly a good a decision, possibly a bad one to not go into Baghdad, but nonetheless, Bush I should be commended for sticking to his guns, particularly in the face of an easy takeover of a weakened Iraq.

It was also found out later that Kuwait was slant drilling into Iraq - i.e. stealing Iraq's oil. So maybe Sadam wasn't entirely wrong to invade...

[techweenie]

Originally posted by dd74
And soon after, the U.S. kicked Iraq out of Kuwait. I don't understand your analogy here. Bush I was very clear with the Gulf War - which was get Iraq out of Kuwait. He even refused the demand (from Cheney, I think), that the U.S. go into Baghdad and topple Sadam. Possibly a good a decision, possibly a bad one to not go into Baghdad, but nonetheless, Bush I should be commended for sticking to his guns, particularly in the face of an easy takeover of a weakened Iraq.

It was also found out later that Kuwait was slant drilling into Iraq - i.e. stealing Iraq's oil. So maybe Sadam wasn't entirely wrong to invade...

There was no analogy in what I posted. Just the simple statement that Bush1 set up Saddam and then knocked him over. The whole war was based on a lie.

Remember the testimony about babies being thrown out of incubators? The administration knew that was a lie and kept quiet because it fired up support for the war.

The context of my comment was that a perevious post about 'lying presidents' omitted Bush1.

[dd74]

Tech - what you posted sounds more like a dialogue intent on fact-finding, not setting up a despot to later dispose of him. Looking at it deeper, it appears as if Bush I was, by the dialogue between Sadam and Amb. Glaspie, trying to avoid war with understanding. As I recall, our action against Iraq at the time involved the much larger concern of a destabilized Middle East once Iraq entered Kuwait. Besides which, as your document suggests, Iraqi troops had already lined up at the Kuwaiti border. Bush I didn't have a hand in that. I don't remember testimonies of babies being thrown out of incubators, but I do remember crudely painted signs that stated "Baby Milk Factory" displayed on Iraqi targets of agression after they were bombed.

Oh, and that the Iraqis used placards that spelled Bush "Bosh" when they protested his actions.

[techweenie]

Originally posted by dd74
Tech - what you posted sounds more like a dialogue intent on fact-finding, not setting up a despot to later dispose of him.

In the context that Saddam was pretty much put in place by the CIA, propped up and given specific tasks to carry out at their behiest, the conversation is slightly colored.

Even on its own merits, the transcript says to me that the US all but greenlighted Saddam's invasion of Kuwait. I'm not sure how you could get anything else out of it.

[Moneyguy1]

No, dd..education and intelligence should be used to further the truth, not warp it. Of course, Goebbels would disagree.

[techweenie]

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
No, dd..education and intelligence should be used to further the truth, not warp it. Of course, Goebbels would disagree.

Some people seem to have glibness confused with intellect. Lots of entertainers are glib. Few are qualified to debate substantive ideas.

[dd74]

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
No, dd..education and intelligence should be used to further the truth, not warp it. Of course, Goebbels would disagree.

Truth? Whose truth? Based on what? Political truths? Social truths? There's a big bad word that hovers in the back of all you say is "truth" and that's subjectivity.

Part of what education is clearly supposed to instill is the ability to decipher bits and pieces of a subject for a person's own intellectual advancement. Intellect is merely the means to convey education.

In these political discussions, it's more than apparent given the polarity that one person's truth is distinctly another person's lie, so really, why discuss the subject of Ben Stein, or for that matter, Nelson Mandela, Ghandi or even Goebbels (low-hanging fruit there...) as with each one there will always be detractors saying "he (or she) isn't advancing truth..."

[dd74]

Originally posted by techweenie
Some people seem to have glibness confused with intellect. Lots of entertainers are glib. Few are qualified to debate substantive ideas.

I guess you'll lump Bill Mahr and Al Franken into that grossly generalized statement.

[Moneyguy1]

dd:

I would include them as well, as I would all idealouges.

I am an equal opportunity contratian in many respects. Goebbels was a master at misdirection, and many today use the same methods that he pioneered (mass media), Like it or not, that is truth. I gave the example a time back about the two horse race in which the loser claimed that they came in second while the other horse came in next to last. This is a true statement, but totally misleading. That is called "spin".

There is a deliberate effort to warp facts and there is also those who observe, give opinion and really try to keep their personal opinions out of it. Not always successful, but at least those observers make an effort. The more observers, the more likely that there will be some degree of "truth" as the story unfolds. Far different than those who never leave the comfort of their armchair or studio and make assumptions about things they have never experienced. Would you believe a Hannity, a Frankin, or would you rather believe an imbedded journalist?

So what is truth? Can you define it? Even history is not the real truth.

I see both good things and bad things the administration has done. In admitting that, extremists on both sides feel they have to find me somehow lacking in sophistication and common sense.

[kach22i]

Nixon used COINTELPRO to subvert those he wanted to during his stay at the whitehouse 1969-1974. For fans of the Patroit Act...................it's been done before - all under the covers.

History COINTELPRO:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/COINTELPRO/gjp3.html