SHOCKING: Britain's Defence Minister under fire for lying (BBC Radio)

"Oelewapper" wrote in message
...

"Jarg" wrote in message
news
wrote in message
...

You mean the truth according to Jimmy Carter? Putting aside the
subjective
nature of "truth", you are wrong that he lost because of his campaign.
He
lost because he was a terrible leader and inept to boot. History will
not
judge his presidency kindly.

Well at least, Carter got a couple of things right, eventhough he couldn't
always influence on or interfere in events, such as the cowardly national
betrayal by Ronald Reagan during the Iran-hostages crisis...

Actually, it was the Israeli seeling Pentagon arms from their $3 billion a
year in freebies that enabled Irqn-Contra.

Oelewapper wrote:
The **** goes on,... as Tony Blair and his defence secretary keep sinking
deeper away in it, and as their relentless lies are being constantly exposed
and inquired upon.

I am not so sure. Look at Bush Jr. I strongly suspect that this was planned a
long time ago by his political specialists: once the debate and evidence that
Bush lied starts to surface, Bush starts some "independant" inquiry which will
have a mandate to clear everything up, a year from now. Between now and the
election, Bush Jr will simply deflect any criticism, telling critics to wait
until the report is out. Yep, people who dislike Bush Jr will see through it,
but they wouldn't be voting for him anyways. Bush will preserve the voters who
still believe he did the right thing by illegally invading Iraq and killing
thousands of innocent Iraqis.

Remember that the crime was pushed by the Cheney-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz axis of
evil. It will be fairly easy for Bush Jr to get some sort of absolution since
like Reagan for Iran-Contra, he be able to claim that he really didn't know.

And this this was an axil of evil plan, one has to wonder what Cheney
Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld did to plan their one protection/escape since this was
their onw pet project.

In the UK, I strongly suspect that Bliar also has a plan in place to delay and
deflect any criticism.

It is very easy to set things up so that Bliar has total deniability. "Give me
only the short story on all the evidence since I don't have time to read
through all the justification." So he's told about the 45 minute thing without
any warning that this info is useless.

"nobody" wrote in message
...
It is very easy to set things up so that Bliar has total deniability.
"Give me
only the short story on all the evidence since I don't have time to read
through all the justification." So he's told about the 45 minute thing
without
any warning that this info is useless.

Making the most serious and graves of decisions to take the country into
war, spending billions of pounds and tens of British lives in the process he
owed it to the people to understand the evidence. If he now claims he didn't
then he's either lying or incompetent. Either way, he's not fit for office.

Si

In article , nobody
wrote:

Stark Raven wrote:
Sorry but it's the American people that history will look unkindly on.
We were terrible, petulant followers during Carter's Presidency,
unworthy of being led anywhere other than death valley.

You forgot that Carter got Egypt and Israel to sign a real, long lasting peace
agreement that has lasted to this day. That is quite an achievement
considering that none of the other presidents were able to get anything real
done.

A president doesn't have 100% control over the ecomomy. He can help steer it,
but he can't steer it. It is possible that Carter may not have steered it
sufficiently in the right direction (or perhaps helped steer it in wrong
direction). But it isn't 100% his own doing. (and yes, that applies to Bush
as well, although Bush definitely has streered it very much in the wrong
direction over his whole stay at the white house)

As far as the Iran hostages issue, which was Carter's real undoing at the 1980
elections, it would have happened to any USA president at the helm during that
time period.

I agreed totally with what you say. And if Presidencies were judged by
their "steering" then Carter's quarterback rating will be near-
perfect. He just didn't have any receivers worth a twit. And those who
say he was an impotent President probably needed a little viagra
themselves. You know pot calling kettle noir, etc.

"Oelewapper" wrote in message
...

"Jarg" wrote in message
news
wrote in message
...

You mean the truth according to Jimmy Carter? Putting aside the
subjective
nature of "truth", you are wrong that he lost because of his campaign.
He
lost because he was a terrible leader and inept to boot. History will
not
judge his presidency kindly.

Well at least, Carter got a couple of things right, eventhough he couldn't
always influence on or interfere in events, such as the cowardly national
betrayal by Ronald Reagan during the Iran-hostages crisis...

Which betrayal would that be? The hostages were released on Reagan's
inauguration day. Coincidence. I doubt it. The Iranians knew Reagan would
take real action. That is only one demonstration of Carter's weaknesses.

Carter was,
and is, a well informed and opinionated man, who took a lot of positive,
daring decisions and who was very well informed (he disposed over the
intellectual skills required for the job) about world affairs - unlike
later
presidents such as Bill Clinton, who failed to see the warning signals on
the deployment of nuclear capabilitiy (testing that is) by the Pakistani
junta - which had just kicked out the democratically elected govt. in
Pakistan - and George Bush, who turned coup-leader Musharaf into one of
his
top allies in his war for democracy and freedom, and in his quest to find
Osama in his cave, as well as in the so-called 'war on terror' against
terrorists, against people who hate freedom, against people who hate
America
or hate people who love freedom, and against anyone who is "not with us" -
such as the countries of the so-called 'axis of evil'.

Carter was no doubt intelligent, may have had a grasp of the issues, but
nonetheless was an inept leader.

Meanwhile of course,
Dr. Kahn and his nuclear buddies in the pakistani military - not in the
least Gen. Musharaf himself - have been the biggest perpetrators of
WMD-proliferation in the history of mankind, exporting all kinds of
nuclear
and other WMD technology to countries like North-Korea. Apparently, the
whole WMD proliferation issue was not about Iraq, as Saddam did not have
any
WMD, but instead the whole problem was with Pakistan, Bush's close ally in
the war on terror, which has been exporting the stuff to "axis of evil"
countries like Iran and N-Korea...

Which has nothing to do with Carter's failed presidency.


So how is it that Carter was such a failure, and that W. Bush is such a
success in the strive for a more human/humane/humanistic and peaceful
world
and in America's strive for "world peace", solidarity, 'compassion',
freedom
and prosperity ???

As far as I can see, GWB is nothing else than the wrong answer for the
wrong\

Perhaps you aren't seeing clearly then.

questions.
At least Jimmy Carter got the questions right.


So what? He was an awful leader.

Jarg

"Stark Raven" wrote in message
...
In article , nobody
wrote:

Stark Raven wrote:
Sorry but it's the American people that history will look unkindly on.
We were terrible, petulant followers during Carter's Presidency,
unworthy of being led anywhere other than death valley.

You forgot that Carter got Egypt and Israel to sign a real, long lasting
peace
agreement that has lasted to this day. That is quite an achievement
considering that none of the other presidents were able to get anything
real
done.

A president doesn't have 100% control over the ecomomy. He can help
steer it,
but he can't steer it. It is possible that Carter may not have steered
it
sufficiently in the right direction (or perhaps helped steer it in wrong
direction). But it isn't 100% his own doing. (and yes, that applies to
Bush
as well, although Bush definitely has streered it very much in the wrong
direction over his whole stay at the white house)

As far as the Iran hostages issue, which was Carter's real undoing at
the 1980
elections, it would have happened to any USA president at the helm
during that
time period.

I agreed totally with what you say. And if Presidencies were judged by
their "steering" then Carter's quarterback rating will be near-
perfect. He just didn't have any receivers worth a twit.

Part of his job was to pick competent help. Just another of his many
failures.

And those who
say he was an impotent President probably needed a little viagra
themselves. You know pot calling kettle noir, etc.

I doubt Viagra would have helped him in the way it helps you. His impotence
was a result of personality and philosophy.

Jarg

On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 17:03:45 GMT, "Jarg"
wrote:

"Oelewapper" wrote in message
...

"Jarg" wrote in message
news
wrote in message
...

You mean the truth according to Jimmy Carter? Putting aside the
subjective
nature of "truth", you are wrong that he lost because of his campaign.
He
lost because he was a terrible leader and inept to boot. History will
not
judge his presidency kindly.

Well at least, Carter got a couple of things right, eventhough he couldn't
always influence on or interfere in events, such as the cowardly national
betrayal by Ronald Reagan during the Iran-hostages crisis...

Which betrayal would that be? The hostages were released on Reagan's
inauguration day. Coincidence. I doubt it. The Iranians knew Reagan would
take real action. That is only one demonstration of Carter's weaknesses.

snipped

Why were they released on Reagan's inaugrual day? It was because
Reagan's handlers secretly negotiated with the Iranians to WITHHOLD
release of the hostages until then so that Reagan would be elected.

JF Mezei trolled:

Oelewapper wrote:
The **** goes on,... as Tony Blair and his defence secretary keep sinking
deeper away in it, and as their relentless lies are being constantly exposed
and inquired upon.

I am not so sure. Look at Bush Jr. I strongly suspect that this was planned a
long time ago by his political specialists: once the debate and evidence that
Bush lied starts to surface, Bush starts some "independant" inquiry which will
have a mandate to clear everything up, a year from now. Between now and the
election, Bush Jr will simply deflect any criticism, telling critics to wait
until the report is out. Yep, people who dislike Bush Jr will see through it,
but they wouldn't be voting for him anyways. Bush will preserve the voters who
still believe he did the right thing by illegally invading Iraq and killing
thousands of innocent Iraqis.

Remember that the crime was pushed by the Cheney-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz axis of
evil. It will be fairly easy for Bush Jr to get some sort of absolution since
like Reagan for Iran-Contra, he be able to claim that he really didn't know.

And this this was an axil of evil plan, one has to wonder what Cheney
Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld did to plan their one protection/escape since this was
their onw pet project.

In the UK, I strongly suspect that Bliar also has a plan in place to delay and
deflect any criticism.

It is very easy to set things up so that Bliar has total deniability. "Give me
only the short story on all the evidence since I don't have time to read
through all the justification." So he's told about the 45 minute thing without
any warning that this info is useless.

Wow, that's really blown my faith in politicians :P

You had faith ?

No, I was being sarcastic.

--
www.affluxion.com
www.moviedirt.co.uk

"Dan Brusca" wrote in message
...
Wow, that's really blown my faith in politicians :P

You had faith ?

No, I was being sarcastic.

It is an oxymoron.