Why did Bush deliberately attack the wrong country?

From: denyav@aol

Looks are always deceiving,for example did you know that both Karl Marx and
Engels were members of "The League of Just" which was the islamic wing of
"The
Illuminati"?

Well, that is most interesting, indeed.

But to get back to the topic of the origin of the "neo-con," let's sum it up by
saying they evolved from the hard-line anti-communist Democrats of the
Truman-Kennedy-Johnson era who from 1972 found themselves abandoned by a party
not merely moving to the Left (not necessarily a bad thing in itself), but
which had become, in Jean Kirkpatrick's words, the "blame America first party."
Kirkpatrick is, of course, herself a perfect example of a Democrat who bolted
the party, first by becoming candidate Reagan's foreign policy advisor, and
ending by joining the Republican Party.
Today the Bush administration is filled with neo-cons (ie hard-line
Democrats/former Democrats) and/or their descendents--in the case of Richard
Pipes this is literally true, as his son Daniel, is a major player in forming
Bush administration policy toward the Islamic world.
Someone in this thread said there are no neo-cons in the Bush administration,
which caused me to laugh so hard I nearly fell out of my chair. This is _the_
neo-con administration. That's why "real" Republican conservatives are so
angry at Bush: he's not running a Republican administration; he's running a new
and improved Kennedy-Johnson administration, with the warm bodies to prove it.
George W. is their revenge against George McGovern and Jimmy Carter. That is
why the current crowd of Democrats loathe the neo-cons with irrational
fury--they see them as turncoats; worse, turncoats who have gained power and
driven them from it. They cannot stand that. Of course the neo-cons are
shouting like James Cagney in White Heat, "Top of the world, ma! Top of the
world!"


Chris Mark

Forgot to mention the obvious example of a most hated (by liberals and
conservatives) "neo-con," Paul Wolfowitz, who first went to Washington to work
for Paul Nitze, Dean Acheson and Albert Wohlstetter. Dean Acheson had been, of
course, Truman's secretary of state, Nitze wrote NSC-68 in the Truman
administration and served as secretary of the navy and deputy secretary of
defense in the Kennedy-Johnson years, and Wohlstetter was "Mr. Fail-Safe" and
the developer of the "second-strike" nuclear capability strategy. If the
Democratic party of pre-1972 still existed, Wolfowitz would be an active
member. Instead, he has joined the Dems who have hijacked the Republican Party
and is a "Republican." So this election, to a very real extent, is a face-off
not between Republicans and Democrats, but between hard-line foreign policy
T-K-J Democrats--the Bush people--and the accomodationist C-C Democrats--the
Kerry people.
So where are the Republicans? Do they still exist? They sure aren't
represented by Arnold Schwartzenegger.


Chris Mark

Who said he did? Notice how Afghanistan is nicely bracketted?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

On 04 Sep 2004 22:42:57 GMT, (BUFDRVR) wrote:

Its a hostile act and what the H Block 4 went through cannot be considered
harboring...not even close.

They were not extradited on request. They were able - like several
republican terrorist fugatives in the USA in several previous cases -
to evade extraditon on the basis of US legislation and legal
interpretations of what were "political" offences. I wonder how the
US government would currently tolerate such niceities over the
extradition of terrorists convicted for the murder of US citizens.
You might disagree with such opinions, but you need to be aware that
the history of the issue does arouse suspicions.

Amazing how a Brit demands the immediate
extradition of wanted UK terrorists, yet has an issue with the U.S. holding
onto a British subject wanted for terrorism by the U.S.

In this instance, British citizens have been denied the legal
protections and mechanisms exploited by refugee IRA terrorists in the
United States. So, yes, there certainly is an incongruity. You
should be aware, however, that certain critics of US legal behaviour
over terrorist extradition and the double-standards this seems to
expose fully support the right of the US to suspend normal legal
standards in certain circumstances when dealing with terrorists.

He allowed them residence and refused to extradite them, true: so he was
no worse than the US.

The U.S. allowed the H Block 4 residence *in prison* or at the least on
electronically monitored house arrest. Your comparison is ridiculous.

Actually, as somebody who supported and supports American policy over
Iraq (at the strategic level at least, with strong reservations at the
operational and tactical level), you should be aware that the
criticisms Paul has made are not confined to traditional reflexive
anti-American constituencies. If you actually do have any interest in
maintaining any kind of multi-lateral alliances in the "War Against
Terrorism", I suggest it might be profitable to make some effort to
understand these kinds of concerns, even if you don't share them
yourself.

Gavin Bailey

--

Now see message: "Boot sector corrupt. System halted. All data lost."
Spend thousands of dollar on top grade windows system. Result better
than expected. What your problem? - Bart Kwan En

Gavin.Bailey wrote:

Its a hostile act and what the H Block 4 went through cannot be considered
harboring...not even close.

They were not extradited on request.

Not being extradited "on request" does not mean you were protected and
sheltered by the U.S. government, particularly if you are jailed. Paul is
trying to compare Abu Nidal to the H Block 4; this is ridiculous. Was there a
delay in returning these people to the UK? Absolutely, but no more than there
would be if a an escaped death row inmate were arrested in the UK.

They were able - like several
republican terrorist fugatives in the USA in several previous cases -
to evade extraditon on the basis of US legislation and legal
interpretations of what were "political" offences.

While they avoided extradition where were they? Most of the time in jail, in
the case of Pol Brennan in solitary confinement. This does not meet the
definition of harboring.

I wonder how the
US government would currently tolerate such niceities over the
extradition of terrorists convicted for the murder of US citizens.

Well, lets see, there was a convicted U.S. murder living in France. He worked
the French legal system and managed to avoid extradition for nearly 20 years.
Like the H Block 4, he spent most of that time in French judicial custody, but
the only outspoken critic was the American family of his victim and no one
accused France of harboring a murderer.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

T-K-J Democrats--the Bush people--and the accomodationist C-C Democrats--the
Kerry people.
So where are the Republicans? Do they still exist? They sure aren't
represented by Arnold Schwartzenegger.

I said for a reason that looks are deceiving and gave Marx-Engels example for
that.

Apparently you are able to see beyond of the looks.
Only thing I want to add to your comments is the fact that so called neocons or
Straussians are not a homogenous group but includes almost all colors of
spectrum,from pure idealistic Strauss scholars like Wolfowitz to the members
of dreaded Illuminati who consider neocons only as expendable temporary tools.

Another historical note: The famous Illuminati was not founded somewhere in
Germany like many assume.
Iluminati has been "resurrected" in Germany 40 years after the demise of
"original Illuminati".
Where was birthplace and and original seat of Illuminati?
In Afghanistan !. and the original name was "The Illuminated Ones"

Subject: Why did Bush deliberately attack the wrong country?
From: "Emmanuel Gustin"

I suggest
naming the attached political philosophy "neo-connery"
instead of "neo-conservatism"

The cognicenti call it NEOCON for short.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

On 05 Sep 2004 15:58:27 GMT, (BUFDRVR) wrote:

Not being extradited "on request" does not mean you were protected and
sheltered by the U.S. government,

I'd agree that none of this is directly equivalent, as the US
government does not control the American legal system. Nonetheless,
the history of US actions and attitudes towards terrorism changed
significantly after terrorism was perceived to be a threat to the US
and no longer "somebody else's problem". The same could be said,
historically, with equal validity for the British, who regarded the
issue refugee continental terrorists with a bizarre kind of
supercilious distain until political terrorism became a domestic
problem with the Fenian dynamite bombings.

Meanwhile, I think it's perfectly valid to bring up issues such as the
difference in treatment between convicted Irish republican terrorists
and suspected British islamic terrorists in US detention.

Well, lets see, there was a convicted U.S. murder living in France. He worked
the French legal system and managed to avoid extradition for nearly 20 years.
Like the H Block 4, he spent most of that time in French judicial custody, but
the only outspoken critic was the American family of his victim and no one
accused France of harboring a murderer.

That depends on the actions the French government might take to
expedite, facilitate, obstruct or ignore US government efforts to
extradite the criminal in question. I'd certainly have no objection
to any American raising his case when examining the issue of French
efforts in "the War Against Terrorism". Even if I didn't think there
was a completely proportional or symmetrical equivalence, I wouldn't
be dismissing such concerns as "ridiculous".

Gavin Bailey
--

Now see message: "Boot sector corrupt. System halted. All data lost."
Spend thousands of dollar on top grade windows system. Result better
than expected. What your problem? - Bart Kwan En

"Emmanuel Gustin" wrote in message
...
"BUFDRVR" wrote in message
...

There are people working in positions in the administration that
could be catagorized as "neo conservatives" (what Neocon stands for),
but
they
don't occupy any cabnit positions and they are certainly the minority.
The
Bush
administration is simply conservative.

It is true that "neo-conservatives" do not occupy all key
positions in this administration, but nevertheless they seem
to control most of its policies.

Name the "neoconservatives" that occupy *any* *key* positions. Please. Time
to put your money where your (overworked) mouth is.

Brooks

snip

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: Why did Bush deliberately attack the wrong country?
From: "Emmanuel Gustin"

I suggest
naming the attached political philosophy "neo-connery"
instead of "neo-conservatism"

The cognicenti call it NEOCON for short.

A term you have yet to be able to define, despite repeated requests for you
to do so. So you must reside outside this "cognicenti"? (As if there was any
doubt of that...)

Brooks


Arthur Kramer