Jr. Squanders Your Children's Inheritance!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Post by Enceladus
WASHINGTON - The U.S. bill for rebuilding Iraq and maintaining security
there is widely expected to far exceed the war's price tag, and some private
analysts estimate it could reach as high as $600 billion.

Do you know that the 9/11 attack cost the US $800 billion? Not to
mention 3000 American lives.

Since you are a leftist elitist, I know the lives are not important to
you. but think of the money we will save by averting future such
attacks.

Regards, Harold (Capitalist Pig)
----
The cost of freedom is always high, but Americans have always paid it.
And one path we shall never choose, and that is
the path of surrender, or submission."
----President John F. Kennedy

Bert Bishop

2003-08-13 13:17:14 UTC

Do you know that the 9/11 attack cost the US $800 billion? Not to
mention 3000 American lives.
Since you are a leftist elitist, I know the lives are not important to
you. but think of the money we will save by averting future such
attacks.
Regards, Harold (Capitalist Pig)
----
The cost of freedom is always high, but Americans have always paid it.
And one path we shall never choose, and that is
the path of surrender, or submission."
----President John F. Kennedy

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and wasn't much of a threat to the
U.S. Reports from the American Intelligence people have complained that
the IRAQ efforts have detracted from the efforts against al-Quida. And
if there were weapons of mass destruction in IRAQ they could be in much
more unreliable hands now because of the war. The war has made
terrorism against Americans more not less likely. As the Kennedy quote
emphasizes, the money, given the current circumstances, is well spent.
However, the current circumstances are the result of bungling and the
money could have been spent in so many more constructive ways.

Incidently, where does the $800 billion figure come from?

harold

2003-08-13 23:48:33 UTC

Do you know that the 9/11 attack cost the US $800 billion? Not to
mention 3000 American lives.
Since you are a leftist elitist, I know the lives are not important to
you. but think of the money we will save by averting future such
attacks.
Regards, Harold (Capitalist Pig)
----
The cost of freedom is always high, but Americans have always paid it.
And one path we shall never choose, and that is
the path of surrender, or submission."
----President John F. Kennedy

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11

We are so gratified that you can convey this information with such
certainty. CLearly, you are an enormously better informed that the
French, British, US and Russian Intelligence agencies. We are so
indebted to you, that you have thought to present you assertion to us.
I am sure.

By the way, do you have evidence of this?

Regards, Harold (Capitalist Running Dog)
----
"We're going to have to take one step at a time, and
the first step is necessarily, given political realities
going to be very modest. Our ultimate goal, total control of handguns in the United States, is going to take time. The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered, and the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns, and all handgun ammunition illegal!"
-----Nelson T. Shields of Hangun Control, Inc.
as quoted in `New Yorker' magazine July 26, 1976. Page 53f

Bert Bishop

2003-08-14 13:56:30 UTC

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 18:48:33 -0500, wrote harold

Post by Bert Bishop
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11

See below. And you?
According to former State Department intelligence chief Gregory
Thielman, the consensus of U.S. intelligence agencies well in advance
of the war was that "there was no significant pattern of cooperation
between Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist operation."
http://www.fourthfreedom.org/pdf/dossier_report.pdf
Is there proof linking Saddam Hussein to Al Qaeda and September 11?
The State Department, the CIA, and other U.S. agencies have reported
no link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, and have stated that Iraq
has not engaged in terrorist attacks against the United States.
The U.S. State Department's Patterns of Global Terrorism report of
April 2001 stated that "the [Iraqi] regime has not attempted an
anti-Western terrorist attack since . . . 1993."
In October, CIA director George Tenet wrote to the Senate
Intelligence Committee: "Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line
short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW
[chemical, biological weapons] against the United States."
In an issue brief to Congress Kenneth Katzman reported "FBI Director
Robert Mueller said in early May 2002 that, after an exhaustive FBI
and CIA investigation, no direct link has been found between Iraq and
any of the September 11 hijackers."
Veteran CIA analyst Melvin Goodman summarizes what many in the
intelligence community on both sides of the Atlantic believe. "I've
talked to my sources at the CIA," he said, "and all of them are saying
the evidence [of a link between al-Qaeda and Saddam] is simply not
there."
The former chief of Pakistan's spy agency declared, "Ideologically
and logically, they [Iraq and Al-Qaeda] cannot work together. . . .
Bin Laden and his men considered Saddam the killer of hundreds of
Islamic militants."
The Central Intelligence Agency recently declassified testimony from
a closed congressional hearing on 2 October in which Senator Carl
Levin (D-MI) asked an unnamed intelligence official whether it "is
likely that [Saddam] would initiate an attack using weapons of mass
destruction?" The official answered: ". . . in the foreseeable future,
given the conditions we understand now, the likelihood I think would
be low."
If the United States were to launch a military attack against Iraq,
however, the intelligence official said that the likelihood of an
Iraqi chemical or biological weapons response was "pretty high."
Powell displayed a picture of a terrorist training camp in northern
Iraq supposedly operated by Zarqawi lieutenants. Powell noted that
this is an area "outside Saddam Hussein's controlled Iraq," although
he claimed, without providing evidence, that Baghdad has an agent in
the Ansar al-Islam that controls this region.
Intelligence officials say there is disagreement among analysts
about whether there are significant connections between Ansar al-Islam
and the Baghdad government. Some administration officials,
particularly at the Pentagon, have argued that Ansar al-Islam has
close ties to the Iraqi government, but other intelligence officials
say there is only fragmentary evidence of such a link.
Mullah Krekar, head of Ansar al-Islam, recently told the BBC: "I
never had links with Saddam Husseins family, Saddam Husseins
government, Saddam Husseins party, not in the past, not now, not in
the future."
--
www.noyce.nl

Thanks to marble for a response superior to anything I would have
given.

Harold asks for evidence in response to a post that asks him for

Do you know that the 9/11 attack cost the US $800 billion? Not to
mention 3000 American lives.

Bert asked:

... where does the $800 billion figure come from?

marbel

2003-08-14 18:58:32 UTC

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 09:56:30 -0400, wrote Bert Bishop

Post by Bert Bishop
Thanks to marble for a response superior to anything I would have
given.

Just a bit faster I bet ;-)

Post by Bert Bishop
Harold asks for evidence in response to a post that asks him for

Post by harold
Do you know that the 9/11 attack cost the US $800 billion? Not to
mention 3000 American lives.

... where does the $800 billion figure come from?

I was waiting for that answer too, in addition to the proof of the
connection. But I'm not holding my breath ;-)

Marjolein

--
www.noyce.nl

Patrick Finucane

2003-08-14 23:57:09 UTC

Post by marbel

Post by harold
Do you know that the 9/11 attack cost the US $800 billion? Not to
mention 3000 American lives.

... where does the $800 billion figure come from?

I was waiting for that answer too, in addition to the proof of the
connection. But I'm not holding my breath ;-)

I'm nor sure where the figure came from but it sounds plausable enough.
Travel came to a standstill for a while, hundreds of thousands of jobs
lost, DC surrounded with armaments, heightened security preparations, a
new federal agency. It all cost/lost money. Put it this way, we had a
surplus, after 911 there was no surplus. 800 billion sounds cheap
looking at the total cost.

marbel

2003-08-15 22:40:54 UTC

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 23:57:09 GMT, wrote Patrick Finucane

Post by Patrick Finucane

Post by marbel

Post by harold
Do you know that the 9/11 attack cost the US $800 billion? Not to
mention 3000 American lives.

... where does the $800 billion figure come from?

I was waiting for that answer too, in addition to the proof of the
connection. But I'm not holding my breath ;-)

You forgot to include the cost of retaliation and the cost of
searching for the perpetrators. Wars, occupations. And maybe, when we
are on a roll, we can add the cost the rest of the world paid too.
Indeed, 800 billion sounds cheap.

Marjolein

--
www.noyce.nl

Bert Bishop

2003-08-16 19:50:03 UTC

Post by harold
[deleted]

Post by Bert Bishop
Thanks to marble for a response superior to anything I would have
given.
Harold asks for evidence in response to a post that asks him for

You call that evidence? Geeze, I guess you are as credulous as the
previous poster.
If you want facts, you do not go to a group which advertises itself as
being against the war before it starts.
But I don't believe you want facts.

Post by harold
Do you know that the 9/11 attack cost the US $800 billion? Not to
mention 3000 American lives.

... where does the $800 billion figure come from?

John Helgerson, Chairman National Intelligence College, "Global Trends
and the Implications of the 11 September Attacks, January 22, 2002."
Joint Economic Committee, "Background Material on the Potential
Economic Impacts of the Terrorist Attacks, September 21, 2001."
University of Chicago Graduate School of Business, "What's Next? The
Economic Effects of September 11."
Most large libraries can get you copies.
Regards, Harold (Capitalist Pig)
----
"A young man who does not have what it takes to perform
military service is not likely to have what it takes to
make a living. Today's military rejects include tomorrow's
hard-core unemployed."
----President John F. Kennedy

Perhaps I am credulous. I am impressed by the evidence you list even
though I don't have the space in my life to verify that they say what
you claim they do. At least for the sake of argument I concede the $800
billion figure. I do think that some of the extra security measures
shouldn't be included, as they probably should be in place anyway. But
they are probably a smalll matter.

Yes Marble used an antiwar source. However they were quoting
administration officials, and intelligence sources. It is possible that
they have slanted the facts by listing only one side. However, I do
listen to and read the U.S. media a bit and the lack of any evidence of
a connection between al_Quida and Iraq speaks from its silence. There
have been a number of cases -- three I can think of including the one
where the administration has tried to make a connection between Ansar
al-Islam and Sadaam's Iraqi government, which Kurds say is actually
supported by the Iranianian government -- where the administration has
something as evidence and it has fallen through. Some eviedence comes
from argument and I have not yet seen a response to the fact that
Sadaam's Bathists and al_Quida are at huge ideological distances.

Also, I would think that even Sadaam wouldn't give weapons to a group
such as al_Quida. Another country did that recently and found the
weapons firing on it's own forces. That country is the United States of
course.

harold

2003-08-17 03:13:19 UTC

Post by harold
[deleted]

Post by Bert Bishop
Thanks to marble for a response superior to anything I would have
given.
Harold asks for evidence in response to a post that asks him for

Post by harold
Do you know that the 9/11 attack cost the US $800 billion? Not to
mention 3000 American lives.

... where does the $800 billion figure come from?

Perhaps I am credulous.

I believe that.

Post by Bert Bishop
I am impressed by the evidence you list even
though I don't have the space in my life to verify that they say what
you claim they do.

Go to a library. You would be absolutely astonished at what you can
find in a library. Like Economics texts, for example.

Post by Bert Bishop
At least for the sake of argument I concede the $800
billion figure. I do think that some of the extra security measures
shouldn't be included, as they probably should be in place anyway. But
they are probably a smalll matter.
Yes Marble used an antiwar source. However they were quoting
administration officials, and intelligence sources.

Read it. Most of the "administration officials" were unnamed. This
should be a red flag, when reading a source which is self proclaimed
as biased. Same with "intelligence sources".

We have recently seen how one news outlet, the BBC, will change those
to suit its agenda, and they are more reputable than the web source
cited!

Ok, they used to be.

Post by Bert Bishop
It is possible that
they have slanted the facts by listing only one side. However, I do
listen to and read the U.S. media a bit and the lack of any evidence of
a connection between al_Quida and Iraq speaks from its silence.

When you are referring to the "US media", you need to be a lot
clearer. You are posting from Ohio, what media are you referring to?
If you don't know hoe to do a search, I can provide some information.

Post by Bert Bishop
There
have been a number of cases -- three I can think of including the one
where the administration has tried to make a connection between Ansar
al-Islam and Sadaam's Iraqi government, which Kurds say is actually
supported by the Iranianian government -- where the administration has
something as evidence and it has fallen through. Some eviedence comes
from argument and I have not yet seen a response to the fact that
Sadaam's Bathists and al_Quida are at huge ideological distances.
Also, I would think that even Sadaam wouldn't give weapons to a group
such as al_Quida. Another country did that recently and found the
weapons firing on it's own forces. That country is the United States of
course.

Source? Weapons?

Don't worry. Given the history of Saddam, I would be surprised if he
did not.

Regards, Harold (Capitalist Pig)
----------
"Men and Women Were Created Equal . . . And Smith & Wesson Makes
Damn Sure It Stays That Way."
-----Radical feminist Nikki Craft

Bert Bishop

2003-08-18 15:04:00 UTC

Post by harold
[deleted]

Post by Bert Bishop
Thanks to marble for a response superior to anything I would have
given.
Harold asks for evidence in response to a post that asks him for

Post by harold
Do you know that the 9/11 attack cost the US $800 billion? Not to
mention 3000 American lives.

... where does the $800 billion figure come from?

Perhaps I am credulous.

I believe that.

Post by Bert Bishop
I am impressed by the evidence you list even
though I don't have the space in my life to verify that they say what
you claim they do.

Go to a library. You would be absolutely astonished at what you can
find in a library. Like Economics texts, for example.

Read it. Most of the "administration officials" were unnamed. This
should be a red flag, when reading a source which is self proclaimed
as biased. Same with "intelligence sources".

I read it. Ignoring the strangly place paragraph Powell... there are 9
bullets to the point. the 5th, 7th and 8th fit harold's description.
These are unverifiable or would require a larger amount of reseach to
verify. I'm sure harold and I would argue about the 6th. But the other
5 bullets do not fit harold's characterization: " Most of the
"administration officials [and intelligence sources]" were unnamed."

Post by harold
We have recently seen how one news outlet, the BBC, will change those
to suit its agenda, and they are more reputable than the web source
cited!
Ok, they used to be.

Please don't tell me how to do a search. It seems to me that the
question at this point is why should I believe that Iraq (under Saddam)
had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks? Since harold and I are having
a discussion of sorts perhaps he could present some evidence. Otherwise
the original statement that there is no generally known connection
between Iraq and 9/11 has only been contradicted by harold's comment:

"CLearly, you are an enormously better informed that the French,
British, US and Russian Intelligence agencies."

Does harold have any information that he can share with us that shows a
such a connection?

Source? Weapons?

My error. I confused the Taliban with al-Quida.

Post by harold
Don't worry. Given the history of Saddam, I would be surprised if he
did not.

I'm not worried. Thankfully Saddam is gone. Even so, I speculate that
being the meglomaniac that he was, Saddam was unlikely to give weapons
to people who were likely to use them against him. Sort of like People
for the American Way giving a bridge loan to Pat Robertson or vice
versa.

I have seen no evidence in the press (NPR, Atlantic Monthly, The Akron
Beacon Journal) of a connection between Iraq and 9/11. I wonder if
anyone can present some.

Post by harold
Regards, Harold (Capitalist Pig)
----------
"Men and Women Were Created Equal . . . And Smith & Wesson Makes
Damn Sure It Stays That Way."
-----Radical feminist Nikki Craft

harold

2003-08-19 01:15:29 UTC

[deleted]

Post by harold
Read it. Most of the "administration officials" were unnamed. This
should be a red flag, when reading a source which is self proclaimed
as biased. Same with "intelligence sources".

Go ahead, then, verify them.

Post by Bert Bishop
I'm sure harold and I would argue about the 6th. But the other
5 bullets do not fit harold's characterization: " Most of the
"administration officials [and intelligence sources]" were unnamed."

There is not a name, so how does that not fit what I said? Just
because you make an assertion, does not mean the assertion is fact.

[deleted]

Regards, Harold (Capitalist Pig)
----
"I do not promise to consider race or religion in my
appointments. I promise only that I will not consider
them."
----President John F. Kennedy

Bert Bishop

2003-08-19 13:12:24 UTC

Post by harold
[deleted]

Post by harold
Read it. Most of the "administration officials" were unnamed. This
should be a red flag, when reading a source which is self proclaimed
as biased. Same with "intelligence sources".

Go ahead, then, verify them.

I've conceded the point on these 3 or 4 bullets. Perhaps harold can't
stand success.

Bullet 1: U.S. State Department's Patterns of Global Terrorism report
of
April 2001

Bullet 2: George Tenet

Bullet 3: Robert Mueller as reported by Kenneth Katzman (who my quick
check on the internet works for what seems to be a reliable source.
Harold's milage may differ).

Bullet 4: Veteran CIA analyst Melvin Goodman

Bullet 6: The Central Intelligence Agency recently declassified
testimony from
a closed congressional hearing on 2 October in which Senator Carl
Levin (D-MI) asked an unnamed intelligence official whether it "is
likely that [Saddam] would initiate an attack using weapons of mass
destruction?" The official answered: ". . . in the foreseeable future,
given the conditions we understand now, the likelihood I think would
be low."

I think this is good evidence, not the vague "sources" sort of thing
since it is from congressional testimony. I can see where harold might
disagree.

Bullet 9: Mullah Krekar, head of Ansar al-Islam as reported by BBC.
But then harold doesn't like the BBC much.

4 names, two reports. Hard evidence if the quotes are correct and not
misused. I think the challenge for those who think the Iraq war was
justified by 9/11 is to provide an Iraqi connection. If there is such
evidence, certaily harold, who gave us three reports supporting the $800
billion cost of 9/11 is capable of finding it and sharing it with us.
Should he fail to provide it I will take it as further evidence that
there is no such evidence.

There is not a name, so how does that not fit what I said? Just
because you make an assertion, does not mean the assertion is fact.
[deleted]
Regards, Harold (Capitalist Pig)
----
"I do not promise to consider race or religion in my
appointments. I promise only that I will not consider
them."
----President John F. Kennedy

harold

2003-08-20 00:48:50 UTC

Post by harold
[deleted]

Post by harold
Read it. Most of the "administration officials" were unnamed. This
should be a red flag, when reading a source which is self proclaimed
as biased. Same with "intelligence sources".

Go ahead, then, verify them.

I've conceded the point on these 3 or 4 bullets. Perhaps harold can't
stand success.

Sorry, not responding. Too far off the thread to even bother with.

[deleted]

Regards, Harold (Capitalist Pig)
----
"A young man who does not have what it takes to perform
military service is not likely to have what it takes to
make a living. Today's military rejects include tomorrow's
hard-core unemployed."
----President John F. Kennedy

Bert Bishop

2003-08-20 13:58:21 UTC

Post by harold
[deleted]

Post by harold
Read it. Most of the "administration officials" were unnamed. This
should be a red flag, when reading a source which is self proclaimed
as biased. Same with "intelligence sources".

Go ahead, then, verify them.

I've conceded the point on these 3 or 4 bullets. Perhaps harold can't
stand success.

Sorry, not responding. Too far off the thread to even bother with.

I thought the thread was about whether it was about whether the Iraqi
invasion was worth the cost. Harold can't or won't supply any evidence
for his rejection of my claim that there was no Iraqi 9/11 connection.
Had there been such evidence it would support the price tag. I've
stayed very close to the thread throughout. It was Harold who diverted
the discussion to whether the evidence provided by Marjolein (marbel)
was believable.

Any masochist who has followed this thread might want to read that
evidence. The url is
http://www.fourthfreedom.org/pdf/dossier_report.pdf.

harold

2003-08-15 23:30:28 UTC

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 18:48:33 -0500, wrote harold

Post by Bert Bishop
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11

You have a lot of faith in a Clinton appointee.

http://www.fourthfreedom.org/pdf/dossier_report.pdf

You also have a remarkable faith in an organization which opposed the
war from the start.

Goebbels would have valued your naivete. You should too.

[deleted]

Regards, Harold (Capitalist Pig)
----
"A young man who does not have what it takes to perform
military service is not likely to have what it takes to
make a living. Today's military rejects include tomorrow's
hard-core unemployed."
----President John F. Kennedy

Ville Ylipekkala

2003-08-13 18:01:03 UTC