Posted on 09/21/2001 8:02:08 AM PDT by Bouncer
Anything to add?
That Robert Scheer article is now on multiple liberal websites and their current deceptive talking point from the article "Bush gave $43 mill. to the Taliban" neglects to mention the UN repeated pleas for the starving millions in Afghanis., the Dem. Senators begging the Pres. for aid (especially Diane Feinstein) and Colin Powell's tours and extensive studies of the Afghani. plight. More links and info here:Clinton's final gift?
DEC.18, 2000-ELECTORAL COLLEGE elects GEORGE W. BUSH.
DEC.20, 2000-CLINTON ADMINISTRATION gives Afghanistan 30 day ULTIMATUM..until-
JAN.20, 2001...INAUGERATION DAY for PRESIDENT BUSH.
In my original post I pointed out that the Robert Scheer article was a complete fabrication, based on the statement:
That's the message sent with the recent gift of $43 million to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, the most virulent anti-American violators of human rights in the world today. The gift, announced last Thursday by Secretary of State Colin Powell, in addition to other recent aid, makes the U.S. the main sponsor of the Taliban and rewards that "rogue regime" for declaring that opium growing is against the will of God. So, too, by the Taliban's estimation, are most human activities, but it's the ban on drugs that catches this administration's attention.
Never mind that Osama bin Laden still operates the leading anti-American terror operation from his base in Afghanistan, from which, among other crimes, he launched two bloody attacks on American embassies in Africa in 1998.
I responded with an article which pointed out the fact that NO MONEY was given, and the humanitarian aid that was sent was NOT sent "to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan" as Scheer puts it, but was to be distributed by the U.N.
Obviously, Scheers article is wrong on more than one point.
Then in post #6 you made the statement:
Perhaps you could explain the $43 million we just gave them in May.
The implication being that we were directly supporting the Taliban, which we aren't.
You linked to a website which made the statement:
But who needs official status when this country in May was happy to cut a check for $43 million as a reward for the Taliban crushing opium poppy production by desperate Afghan farmers?
That is an abject lie. And by now you should know it.
But of course you then change the subject from the horrible allegation that the Bush Administration GAVE MONEY TO THE TALIBAN, to the fact that some of the aid we sent could be diverted and sold to indirectly help the Taliban. That, of course is possible, but you have yet to give one shred of proof that it has happened in this instance. But, even if it has happened, it does not change the fact that you were lying through your teeth when you made the statement that the Bush Administration had given the Taliban $43 million.
A better case could be made that liberal organizations fought for and won $43 million for the Taliban. That would also be deceptive, and most Freepers would be jumped on for making such an unfounded allegation.
AFGHANISTAN: Famine Endangering 1 Million, UN Says; More
Wrapping up a visit to Afghanistan and Pakistan to witness the plight of the Afghan populace firsthand, the head of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs said yesterday Afghans urgently need assistance if the international community wishes to avert a mass famine.
"We believe that at least 1 million people are at risk of famine," said Kenzo Oshima after returning from his visit to the Central Asian region.
Oshima said he saw "a sea of people living in unbelievable misery" during a visit to a refugee camp near Jalozai, Pakistan (Reuters/ABCNEWS.com, 20 Feb). More than 130,000 Afghan refugees are living in horrible conditions near Jalozai.
Oshima met with with Pakistan's military ruler General Pervez Musharraf in Islamabad on Friday. They discussed the Pakistani proposal to provide more relief to displaced persons inside Afghanistan (Agence France-Presse/ReliefWeb, 17 Feb). Oshima noted that the United Nations was involved in discussions with the Taliban to explore that option. Oshima also discussed with Pakistani authorities the possibility of setting up another refugee camp in Pakistan in order to ease overcrowding (Reuters/MSNBC.com, 17 Feb). Approximately 700 people are crossing the Afghan border into Pakistan every day (Reuters/ABCNews.com).
Oshima praised the "generous" long-term commitment of Pakistan to the refugee crisis. "We recognize that here is a tremendous burden put on the government and people," he said. "We hope that the open and generous attitude which has been demonstrated will be maintained" (AFP/ReliefWeb).
Relief Aid Stabilizes Situation
The arrival of relief aid in the last two weeks has helped stabilize the deteriorating conditions at camps for the internally displaced around Herat in western Afghanistan.
Relief agencies, however, are bracing themselves for the arrival of more refugees as snow begins to melt and open up the mountain passes. Aid groups are now focusing on reaching out to people in outlying rural areas in order to "discourage further migration to Herat," according to UN World Food Program coordinator Denise Brown. According to Brown, some of these areas have not received food assistance since October.
Brown also said that efforts are needed to reactivate farming in the region. "The shortage of seeds needs to be addressed immediately," she said. Seeds are in short supply because the major suppliers in Iran and Pakistan have also been affected by the severe drought that has struck Central Asia (Integrated Regional Information Networks, 19 Feb).
Figures don't lie, but liars figure. Let's all try to remember that the largest chunk of our military spending is in the form of payroll and other benefits. In totalitarian third-world countries, this is matched by less than a dime on the dollar.
Next, we have to remember that communist regimes have complete control over pricing. For example, the price of a MiG jet fighter might have been set at $5,000 because the Supreme Soviet said so. This kind of pricing philosophy pervaded the entire communist weapons acquisition system. A T-72 tank might be priced at $900. An AK-47 assault rifle might be priced at $12.
By comparison, at one point in the 1990s when I looked up the price tags, a stripped down version of our F-16 fighter cost $21 million, an M-1 tank cost $1 million and an M-16A1 rifle cost $2,000. The communists ran their military factories at a colossal loss, even though they were paying their workers Third World wages if they were paying them at all.
Also, another form of "creative accounting" kept many defense-related expenditures (such as intelligence) entirely off the books, so to speak.
It might put things into a more accurate perspective to point out that we have roughly 3 million people in uniform (including reserves and National Guard) while the Chinese have almost 100 million. We have tried to compensate for their overwhelming numerical advantages by going ultra-high tech. This is expensive, particularly when we spend several million dollars on research & development costs for systems that are later handed over to the Chinese by some yokel from Arkansas in exchange for a few thousand dollars in campaign contributions.
Good point about the figures. In the case of this Robert Scheer article, the explanation is rather simple and easy to verify, but of course (unlike Freepers) people on the left do not seem to hold each other accountable for the truth. These pundits posing as legitimate journalists get amazing coverage for their spin.
Our response to this thread should probably be simply: STOP THE SPIN!
I posted the press statement from Secretary Powell back in May, together with the link to the State Department website where it was posted. This indicated that the $43 million in aid was in the form of grain, medical supplies, blankets and other humanitarian aid, sent entirely to Red Crescent (Islamic equivalent of the Red Cross) and other relief organizations, to keep it out of the hands of the Taliban.
Secretary Powell also pointed out that last year, we sent $114 million. Who was the President last year, Bouncer and which party did he belong to?
After I posted all that, I asked four questions: First, do you really believe that Bush met with Powell in some smoke-filled back room of the White House and said, "Hey, I hear Osama bin Laden is planning to blow up the World Trade Center, so let's send him $43 million in small, unmarked bills"?
Second, do you really believe that anyone outside your tiny little circle of left-wing friends is stupid enough to believe that? (You've always been able to count on the stupid vote, but are they that stupid?)
Third, was Clinton equally cautious about making certain that all $114 million of aid went to the refugees? Or did he send his boys to deliver $114 million in small, unmarked bills directly to bin Laden? (I'm not accusing Clinton of anything, I'm just asking. Inquiring minds want to know.)
And fourth, at that press conference in May there were a lot of left-wing media hounds (formerly Clinton lap dogs) shoving cameras and microphones into Powell's face, asking a lot of questions. Where were they last year and why didn't they ask Clinton the same questions?
Bouncer, your continued presence on this website is a testament to Jim Robinson's unswerving belief in free speech. Perhaps we should send you and other liberal Freepers on a tour of all the left-wing hate sites, where they believe that the moment anyone breathes a whisper that isn't to the right of center, he is banned instantly. By my criticisms of your beliefs, I do not mean to make you feel unwelcome because unlike many other liberals who have made a (very brief) visit to this site, you present them in a polite and respectful way. Stick around.
If you want to go there then let's ask the question of which President funded, trained and armed these people in the first place. Which President started this mess in Afghanistan and then, by not seeing it through (ala Iraq), left a power vacuum filled by the Taliban? But that's a bigger discussion on another thread.
You believe that the govt is telling you the 100% complete truth in this matter (and they're telling you that 1/4 of the aid was not "grain") and that those guys from the Taliban, if they got aid, would never convert it for their own purpose.
I think that's a fantasy. You can trust our Taliban if you want, I don't trust either Taliban to tell me the truth.
See previous 2 million posts by Freepers re: Ruby Ridge, Waco, etc. screaming "Blame Clinton! Blame Clinton!" for the textbook on this process.
And you thought the lefties weren't paying attention!
Left-wing fringe dwellers have been coming to this site for four years, trying to stir up trouble and make us look bad. We call them disruptors. You don't appear to be one. But they take many guises and use many different tactics. If you'd like to discuss that, I'm more than willing. But let's talk about Middle East policy for now since that is the topic of this thread, shall we?
Yes, the twelve-year Reagan-Bush administration did arm and train the mujahedeen to fight the Soviet Army. At the time, we believed the Soviets were a greater threat to world peace and stability. Kind of like that Democratic president who sent billions of dollars worth of military aid to the Soviets because he thought the Nazis were a greater threat to world peace and stability.
You mention Iraq as another problem caused by Bush Sr. failing to see it through. That was a UN operation and the UN decided to slam on the brakes before our ground forces reached Baghdad. The coalition would have abandoned us and there was a danger that we would suddenly be perceived as the new aggressors in the region.
Ruby Ridge and Waco are reflections of the fact that the Clinton Administration focused its anti-terrorist efforts principally on domestic terrorism. So is the World Trade Center. Clinton evidently believed that a few militiamen with shotguns that had barrels 1/4" too short were a greater threat than Osama bin Laden. (But you can make Reno the "fall guy" if you prefer. That should serve her well in her campaign against Jeb Bush in Florida.)
On other threads, a news story is developing regarding the 1996 FAA commission on airline safety, whose findings were watered down by Al Gore at the urging of airline industry lobbyists. Within weeks, $500,000 had poured into DNC coffers from the airlines to help Clinton/Gore defeat Bob Dole. Clinton and Gore evidently believed that Dole was a greater threat than terrorists on our passenger planes.
Let's talk, shall we?
"I've signed an executive order that immediately freezes United States financial assets of and prohibits United States transactions with 27 different entities. They include terrorist organizations, individual terrorist leaders, a corporation that serves as a front for terrorism, and several nonprofit organizations.
Just to show you how insidious these terrorists are, they oftentimes use nice-sounding, non-governmental organizations as fronts for their activities. We have targeted three such NGOs."
Kinda puts some swiss cheese holes in that argument of yours that all those NGOs were just sending wheat (see my earlier posts on NGOs). Now mind you I have to give him his props for closing that loophole (a dirty little secret known to the NGOs).
Your honor, the prosecution rests its case.
Someday, when I have some time, I plan to write a vanity piece entitled Why FreeRepublic Needs Liberals.
I don't mean the type you call disrupters (I don't think any more of their drive by rants than I do of conservatives who do that sort of thing on liberal sites) but rather some Liberal members of FreeRepublic who offer real liberal opinions.
It would be pretty dull around here if all you guys did was high five each other every time Hitlery rolls her eyes (see, I pay attention). You need a few liberals who can give a punch (and take one) every now and then. We liberals have to be somewhat respectful while here, this is after all your home and we need to rememeber that we're guests. I enjoy corresponding with Conservatives more than I do with Liberals. It helps me think out my positions and makes me consider things in ways that I normally wouldn't. Or maybe I'm just a political junkie (I do live in Wash DC!)....
You'll get a few flame trolls here too. Don't get me wrong. But the ratio of thoughtful, respectful hosts to flame trolls is a great deal higher on this site than on the left-wing hate sites, despite what the inhabitants of those sites have obviously been saying about us.
For some more long-term liberal inhabitants here, you can look up Bubbah Gump and dwbh. You're not alone. Then of course there are quite a few Libertarians, who are very liberal on social issues (but extremely conservative on fiscal issues). You'll find them sticking up for gay rights and abortion rights, but then they'll do an apparent 180 and call for the abolition of the income tax and the right of all citizens to own full-auto assault rifles.
Posting While Liberal
What do you think???
Like I said, the one you have is fine.
I wasted several months posting at the official DNC hate site, http://webx.ibelong.com -- along with some fellow conservatives, we were flamed constantly. The moderators constantly watched us, and if we started to respond with mild attacks of our own, they were instantly deleted. In the meantime, the most vile attacks by the left-wing fringe dwellers who live there were ignored by the moderators.
That's pretty much a consistent theme that we have encountered at all of the left-wing hate sites. There is an extremely strict, rigidly enforced code of conduct for those conservatives who post there. But liberals can attack them at will, without fear of any consequences. And they have the nerve to accuse Free Republic of banning anyone who doesn't agree with us.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.