http://www.drudgereport.com/flash5.htm

"In last week's WASHINGTONPOSTWABCNEWS Poll, John F. Kerry was viewed favorably by 36 percent of registered voters, down 18 points over the past six months.

But just how low Kerry's standing has fallen cannot be appreciated fully without comparing his standing with that of other household names in GALLUP polls over the years, the POST's Dana Milbank reported on Tuesday.

Kerry finds himself in a dead heat with Martha Stewart and Joseph McCarthy, and behind Herbert Hoover -- although he narrowly beats O.J. Simpson."

Above Kerry on that list are John Ashcroft, Jesse Jackson, and Vladimir Putin. I think it's time to start talking about write-in candidates for the blue party.

BTW--While we're at it, can anyone tell me what Kerry's stance on Iraq is? I know it's different, and that Bush's is "wrong" from Kerry...but just what is his Iraq stance?

BTW--While we're at it, can anyone tell me what Kerry's stance on Iraq is? I know it's different, and that Bush's is "wrong" from Kerry...but just what is his Iraq stance?

Since you asked, here is what he says about Iraq taken from John Kerry.com:

We have got to come together as never before to build a stable Iraq. Not just to finish the mission, but to remind the world that a shared endeavor can bring the world closer toward peace.

As complicated as Iraq seems, there are really only three basic options: One, we can continue to do this largely by ourselves and hope more of the same works; Two, we can conclude it’s not doable, pull out and hope against hope that the worst doesn’t happen in Iraq; Or three, we can get the Iraqi people and the world’s major powers invested with us in building Iraq’s future.

Mistakes have complicated our mission and jeopardized our objective of a stable free Iraq with a representative government, secure in its borders. We may have differences about how we went into Iraq, but we do not have the choice just to pick up and leave—and leave behind a failed state and a new haven for terrorists.

I believe that failure is not an option in Iraq. But it is also true that failure is not an excuse for more of the same.

Here is how we must proceed.

First, we must create a stable and secure environment in Iraq. That will require a level of forces equal to the demands of the mission. To do this right, we have to truly internationalize both politically and militarily: we cannot depend on a US-only presence. In the short-term, however, if our commanders believe they need more American troops, they should say so and they should get them.

But more and more American soldiers cannot be the only solution. Other nations have a vital interest in the outcome and they must be brought in.

To accomplish this, we must do the hard work to get the world’s major political powers to join in this mission. To do so, the President must lead. He must build a political coalition of key countries, including the UK, France, Russia and China, the other permanent members of the UN Security Council, to share the political and military responsibilities and burdens of Iraq with the United States.

The coalition should endorse the Brahimi plan for an interim Iraqi government, it should propose an international High Commissioner to work with the Iraqi authorities on the political transition, and it should organize an expanded international security force, preferably with NATO, but clearly under US command.

Once these elements are in place, the coalition would then go to the UN for a resolution to ratify the agreement. The UN would provide the necessary legitimacy. The UN is not the total solution but it is a key that opens the door to participation by others.

In parallel, the President must also go to NATO members and others to contribute the additional military forces and to NATO to take on an organizing role. NATO is now a global security organization and Iraq must be one of its global missions.

To bring NATO members and others in, the President must immediately and personally reach out and convince them that Iraqi security and stability is a global interest that all must contribute to. He must also convince NATO as an organization that Iraq should be a NATO mission—a mission consistent with the principles of collective security that have formed the basis of the alliance’s remarkable history in the pursuit of peace and security.

To bring others in it is imperative we share responsibility and authority. When NATO members have been treated with respect, they have always – always – answered the call of duty. So too with other key contributors. Every one has a huge stake in whether Iraq survives its trial by fire or is consumed by fire and becomes a breeding ground for terror, intolerance and fear.

I know that some will say that this is an impossible task, but I believe it is doable with the right approach. We must lead but we must listen. We must use every tool of diplomacy and persuasion to bring others along.

I also understand that perhaps NATO cannot undertake the entire Iraq mission right away. But it could possibly take control of Iraq’s borders, take responsibility for Northern Iraq and/or the Polish sector, and train Iraq’s army. If NATO did this, it would free up as many as 20,000 American troops, and open the door for other countries outside of NATO to participate.

The immediate goal is to internationalize the transformation of Iraq, to get more foreign forces on the ground to share the risk and reduce the burden on our own forces. That is the only way to succeed in the mission while ending the sense of an American occupation.

We must take these steps because there is greater strength in greater numbers and stronger alliances. And failure to move forward will be seen as a failure of American leadership.


Second:

The second key element is the High Commissioner. Backed by a newly broadened security coalition, he should be charged with overseeing elections, the drafting of a constitution and coordinating reconstruction. The Commissioner should be highly regarded by the international community and have the credibility to talk to all the Iraqi people.

This Commissioner should be directed to work with Iraq’s interim government, the new US Ambassador, and the international community after June 30 to ensure a process that continues to move forward on the path toward sovereignty, while focusing on the immediate needs of the Iraqis themselves.

The Iraqi people desperately need financial and technical assistance that is not swallowed up by bureaucracy and no-bid contracts, but instead goes directly into the hands of grassroots organizations. They need to see the tangible benefits of reconstruction in the form of jobs, infrastructure, and services. And they need to be able to communicate their concerns to international authorities without feeling they are being insulted and disrespected in their own country.

Third:

We need a massive training effort to build Iraqi security forces that can actually provide security for the Iraqi people. We must accept that the effort to date has failed: it must be rethought and reformed. Training cannot be hurried. It must be done in the field and on the job as well as in the classroom. Units cannot be put on the street without backup from international security forces. They cannot be rushed into battle before they are ready.

This is a task to do in partnership with other nations, not just on our own. This is a task which must be successful. If we fail to create viable Iraqi security forces – military and police – there is no successful exit for us and other nations.

But why would others join a cause that they did not support in the first place? For one simple reason: it’s in their self-interest. For the Europeans, Iraq’s failure could endanger the security of their oil supplies, further radicalize their large Muslim populations, threaten destabilizing refugee flows, and seed a huge new source of terrorism.

And for Iraq’s neighbors, a civil war in Iraq could draw them in, put moderates in the region on the defensive and radicals on the rise. And a civil war could threaten the regimes in Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia.

These compelling interests have always existed and they must now be the central piece of a diplomatic effort long overdue. Will a new approach in Iraq be difficult to achieve? Yes.
Is there a guarantee of success? No.

In light of all the mistakes that have been made, no one can say that success is certain, but I can say that if we do not try, failure is all too likely.

If the President will take the needed steps to share the burden and make progress in Iraq – if he leads – then I will support him on this issue.

When Winston Churchill came to Westminster and defined the great mission of the Cold War, he called on free nations to stand together against tyranny. America’s leader in that moment of history was a tough and visionary son of Missouri named Harry Truman. President Truman could have used America’s power as an excuse to go it alone in the world. Instead, he joined with the leaders of many nations to create institutions like NATO and other alliances to preserve peace, spur economic progress and address global problems.

Much has changed since Churchill spoke. The institutions created more than half a century ago remain useful and relevant. But yesterday’s designs are not sufficient to meet today’s needs. Our institutions and alliances must adapt to new opportunities and threats. New enemies must be confronted by new strategies. America must lead in new ways.

But even as we contemplate what has changed, we must also remember what has not: Our belief in the rights and dignity of every human being. Our faith in democracy as the best form of government in all of human history. And our confidence in America’s capability to lead allies and friends to stand together and build a world more peaceful, prosperous and just than we have ever known before.

That was our mission in Churchill’s time. And for all the differences of time and circumstance, that is our urgent need in Iraq today and our enduring mission in the years ahead.

There is pride in that and honor – and if we meet the test, we can have a world that is safer because of American leadership.

Thank you very much.

What a slap in the face it must be for John Kerry to be below John Ashcroft... don't even get me started on how he must feel regarding Jesse Jackson. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v282/sierra11b/Emoticons/lol.gif

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash5.htm
BTW--While we're at it, can anyone tell me what Kerry's stance on Iraq is? I know it's different, and that Bush's is "wrong" from Kerry...but just what is his Iraq stance?

*whistles in corner & twirls thumbs in expectation*

Did you read that before you posted it? I'll ask again: Read that thing and then tell me specifically what John Kerry's position on Iraq is. Here he's got some ridiculous and some moderately plausible plans for the future of Iraq.

My question is: what is his position on the war itself? Justified, or not? Would he have gone, or not? If he would have gone "differently"...how so?

By including France, Russia, and China into a coalition that already has the UK???

Has anyone you know or yourself ever taken one of these polls? Where do these figures come from?

Did you read that before you posted it? I'll ask again: Read that thing and then tell me specifically what John Kerry's position on Iraq is. Here he's got some ridiculous and some moderately plausible plans for the future of Iraq.

My question is: what is his position on the war itself? Justified, or not? Would he have gone, or not? If he would have gone "differently"...how so?

By including France, Russia, and China into a coalition that already has the UK???

Did you bother to read it after I posted it?

He makes a lot of reasonable points about what he'd attempt to do to win the peace and bring stability to Iraq.

His position on the war itself is that its been conducted wrong and needs a different tact and approach to bring it to some degree of conclusion.

Yes, in his plan it would involve other security council members, like you mention Russia China and France, and probably NATO as well.

So there's a long discussion of what Kerry thinks we should do, ignore it if you want to- but don't go on about how he hasn't stated his position or his plan.

I have to say that I don't agree with all of it, but I gotta say that its a whole lot more than commander bunnypants and his Halliburton brigade have done for us, those guys still haven't explained the first bit of what they're going to do to put an end to the death and misery we are delivering there on a daily basis.

Has anyone you know or yourself ever taken one of these polls? Where do these figures come from?

They come from a randomly picked groups of +/- 2500 voters and are usually cause for certain scrutiny based on the fact the polls represent a significantly small piece of the voting pie.

However, the fact that there's a substantial gap of 18 points over the last six months and 12% since the RNC from several polls leaves little for debate.

or better yet, how many people do they cull to get this info? My guess is no more than 2000. Weak Sauce in my opinion

They come from a randomly picked groups of +/- 2500 voters and are usually cause for certain scrutiny based on the fact the polls represent a significantly small piece of the voting pie.

However, the fact that there's a substantial gap of 18 points over the last six months and 12% since the RNC from several polls leaves little for debate.

Meh, its all hot air. I can't get all worked up about it now, we'll just have to wait for the election.

Did you bother to read it after I posted it?

He makes a lot of reasonable points about what he'd attempt to do to win the peace and bring stability to Iraq.

His position on the war itself is that its been conducted wrong and needs a different tact and approach to bring it to some degree of conclusion.

Yes, in his plan it would involve other security council members, like you mention Russia China and France, and probably NATO as well.

So there's a long discussion of what Kerry thinks we should do, ignore it if you want to- but don't go on about how he hasn't stated his position or his plan.

I have to say that I don't agree with all of it, but I gotta say that its a whole lot more than commander bunnypants and his Halliburton brigade have done for us, those guys still haven't explained the first bit of what they're going to do to put an end to the death and misery we are delivering there on a daily basis.


Well, you obviously saw from my poke at the absolutely retarded idea of bringing China, Russia, and France into the equation (it's never going to happen, never would have, and never will), so you know I read the tract. Now what I'm still asking for is the answer to the very clear question I posted the first time. Here it is again, and this is what I want an answer to:

My question is: what is his position on the war itself? Justified, or not? Would he have gone, or not? If he would have gone "differently"...how so?

Now, once you've answered that, can you explain to me why you didn't see it the first time?

Where are you going with this? Kerry voted for an eventual use of force. But he didnt vote for a pre-emptive, UN-less war.

The real question is: Where are the WMDs? How has the issue completely dissappeared? We went to war on false pretenses. We laid into a country because of some bullsh!t intelligence. We have murdered their citizens, while our kids are dying in an unjust war. And here we are arguing about polls and Kerry's supposed flip-flop on certain issues.

Screw it... let's just delve back into the ridiculoius argument of the Swift Boaters for Oil Rich Texans or whatever the hell group that is.

Govt accountability? Blah!

or better yet, how many people do they cull to get this info? My guess is no more than 2000. Weak Sauce in my opinion

Voting polls have consistently shown an average of -3% of error throughout history and are considered a valuable resource among candidates in an election... some "weak sauce", huh?

that is a popularity poll. what are the stats on those?


try these sources:

peoplemagazine.com

entertainmenttomorrow.com

foxnews.com

Well, you obviously saw from my poke at the absolutely retarded idea of bringing China, Russia, and France into the equation (it's never going to happen, never would have, and never will), ?

And why is that? he said that they need to be involved in both the political and military sides of the equation, I can see why they might not want to join us for an ill-fated and ill advised military campaign that looks to be failing dismally, but why can't they be pursuaded to join us on the political side? especially if we get an administration that is a little more willing to build coalitions?

China is probably our #1 trading partner, if not they are working up to it, Russia has said they are fully on board in the war against Terrorism, and then there's France, but whatever, why do you think that is so "retarded"?

As for it "never would have" Poppy bush managed to get them all on board for his first GulfWar, how is it all so different now? (other than the fact that his bubble headed son is such an arrogant nincompoop).


My question is: what is his position on the war itself? Justified, or not? Would he have gone, or not? If he would have gone "differently"...how so? ?

I think its pretty explicit, -his "position"?- he thinks that making Iraq a peaceful and stable nation is a worthy objective.

Would he have gone, or not? -I don't think there is a yes/no answer for that, and I think that you are being unreasonable in expecting such.

He would have spent considerably more effort in building international support and a broad coalition before going in, which might have made a full invasion and occupation unneccesary, and if it still required military action, it would have been broader based and considerably better directed towards meeting the objective of establishing a safe, stable and secure Iraq, rather than focusing on looting that nations energy resources, which seems to be the only "mission accomplished" so far.

How he would have done it differently? see above.

Why are you in denial of the things that are sitting typed out in plain english in front of you?

Fact of the matter is, this international relations stuff is damn complicated, there aren't any easy one-sentance sound bite answers (like Bush and Cheney like to spew) that are going to solve any of these issues, its going to take creative thinking, lots of diplomacy and a modicum of respect for the people involved.


None of which has been shown to be in the Bush/Cheney teams bag of tricks.


Now, once you've answered that, can you explain to me why you didn't see it the first time?

no, I saw it and I gave you the best official answers I could find that are on public record.

On the other hand, what is the Bush/Cheney position on Iraq? what is their plan to win the peace there?


Oh yeah,



THEY DON'T HAVE A PLAN!


or is it "The beatings will continue until morale improves"

And why is that?

It's retarded because Russia, China, and France never have been great allies in recent history and the traditional practice for them is to abstain from Security Council decisions involving US military force. Kerry is a liar or an idiot if thinks he can bring them in to this plan. "Poppy Bush" did not get China into the first Iraq. Neither did he get russians into the first Iraq.


he have gone, or not? -I don't think there is a yes/no answer for that, and I think that you are being unreasonable in expecting such.

That's exactly what I was drawing attention to. Kerry has no answer for whether or not he would have gone to war with Iraq given the circumstances, because he's too spineless to actually take a stand on it. I think it's entirely unreasonable to expect my vote for president when you can't tell me if you would've undertaken a project as large and expensive as a war. "I don't know what I would've done, maybe so maybe no" isn't a reasonable answer to voters' questions about the war. The whole point of campaigning is to tell people what your positions are. "I'll handle complicated things in complicated ways I can't explain right now" is all that I'm getting for an answer out of this business from Kerry.


He would have spent considerably more effort in building international support and a broad coalition before going in....

Well, we don't know this, because as you admitted above, you don't even know if Kerry would have gone to Iraq. It would seem to me impossible then to claim that he would've built a coalition, because you aren't even sure he would've gone to war in the first place.
Beyond that obvious logical problem with what you're saying, there's also the "complicated international relations stuff" to consider: France and Germany are the only two western allies that were left out of the coalition to go to Iraq. Bush included literally every other player in the coalition. France was illegally profitting from Iraqi oil, and had longstanding ties with Saddam. Take a look at the reports from Germany's pacifist government. I dare you to give an explanation that wouldn't be laughed off the table at your "international relations stuff" 101 course as to how Kerry would've gotten either France or Germany into Iraq.


As for the Bush plan...Iraq has a government now and is trainiing a police force with US help. How does that not constitute working towards securing Iraq? See CNN today...the administration is diverting 3 billlion to security and oil production in Iraq. What exactly is it that you're confused about with the Bush strategy?

One thing the Bush's do not do is LIE and put a definite timeline on the end of the operation. Kerry has made statements to the effect that he would have troops out by his first term's end. That is, if you're in to "complicated international relations stuff" like I am, so blatantly ridiculous that I can't believe Kerry believed that anyone would take him seriously.

So far, here's how this discussion goes:
Kerry's position on Iraq: "not a yes/no thing".
Kerry's plan: "Build a coalition" with member states that will not in any realistic scenario participate.

Here's one of the rare accurate one sentence answers in this field: That is pure crap.

See CNN today...the administration is diverting 3 billlion to security and oil production in Iraq. What exactly is it that you're confused about with the Bush strategy?

Yeah that was a really good move, take 3 billion that was supposed to go to water and power infrastructure rehabilitation something that that might allow Iraqi civilians to just f-ing survive, and hand it over to Halliburton and Bush's mercenary security buddies, gotta keep that oil flowin'!.

Here's a hint for the brilliant strategists that thought that one up:
Pissing people off by keeping them from water and electricity is going to make them attack our troops and the oil, regardless of how much money is spent in their defese.
Get the water and power situation fixed and folks will have other things to occupy their time, besides blowing up our soldiers and the oil pipelines.

As for replying to any of the rest of your post I'd have to say you summed it up pretty well for me;
That is pure crap.


Where the hell do you come from anyway subaruguru? you've been on i-club for 14 days posting only on the political forum, and only posting completely bone headed republican drivel .....wait....a... second.......

Salty's back.......and much more rational.


I know who you are!


Welcome back Hella Dumb!

You can't hide behind a different name! just sit down at the keyboard and we all know who you are.

Where's that unsubscribe button....

You managed to give some half assed criticism of the Bush plan, which may or may not be valid...I'm not sure what's going on with Iraqi power and water right now. But what you also did was:

1. Not respond to the problems I pointed out with Kerry's lack of a position. I'm assuming you went into talking about who I am because you don't have a good answer to this. Well, I guess I can't expect you to admit you're stumped. Showing it is the next best thing.

2. Not address the "complicated international relations stuff" that I was so hoping you would. I mean, you didn't even give an inadequate one sentence reply to all that about France and Germany and China and Russia. If all this information is out there from Kerry's plans...why didn't you just sum it up for me? Easy, right?

3. Attacked what you think is my identity as a way of responding to presumably everything. Do you have to be republican to see that John Kerry is a crappy politician? Nope, you sure don't. And, who I am or not has zero to do with the issue at hand.

I'll watch for more responses on the substance of the points on Kerry's pathetic foreign policy/Iraq ideas...but you know, I'm not expecting them. At least, not until you work all that "complicated international relations stuff" out with your study buddies :)

Where the hell do you come from anyway subaruguru? you've been on i-club for 14 days posting only on the political forum, and only posting completely bone headed republican drivel .....wait....a... second.......

Salty's back.......and much more rational.


I know who you are!


Welcome back Hella Dumb!

You can't hide behind a different name! just sit down at the keyboard and we all know who you are.

Where's that unsubscribe button....

Subaruguru has been my bestfriend since middle school but dropped out in our early years of highschool.

OK so I stand corrected, its not the return of our least favorite troll, but I have to say I was quite taken by your similar lack of rational thought.

As for coming back in defense of Kerrys position, I won't anymore, because I don't know enough about the back door politics to say whether any of it has any chance, I can only say that despite your inability to percieve any plan, what he laid out there makes a lot more sense to me than anything I've heard out of the Bush/Cheney Camp since they came to power.

And You were right I was wrong about GHWPB, Russia tried to keep us from going to war and China abstained for voting on the SC resolutions, so having them totally behind us might be a bit of a strech, but for my dime, I'd rather see it tried than dismissed out of hand.

The fact remains thet W, Dick Coni Colin and all the gang lied bold-faced, over and over, to the country and the world, about WMD's about Husseins threat to us and the world and they unilaterally ordered our troops to attack a soveriegn nation in violation of every treaty, convention and international law on the books.

Along with shredding the clean air act and disembowling the EPA he has flaunted international arms control agreements and environmental agreements and has completely squandered the deep pool of support and sympathy the world extended to us after 9/11.

This is not even mentioning the historically unprecendented financial crisis we are being plunged into with a national debt skyrocketing to new heights that put Regan's deficits to shame.

I don't care how much of a flaky politician John Kerry is, there is no way in hell he could do any more damage to this country that this criminal administration now in power now has done in the last 3 and a half years.


If you're so insistant that Kerry needs a clear plan, where is the clear plan from your side?

I just don't see how pissing off the rest of the world is ever going to make us any safer, or allow any kind of stability anywhere in the world.

...as long as we don't do to Iraq what we did to Chile...we f***ed them up in terms of 'enstating a fair and democratic government'...we gave them a butcher worse than they had...I say we withdraw, save our troops lives, save the Iraqi people the indignity of having another country tell them what's right and wrong, and save our government's money and time...
No, even though I will probably vote for him, I don't like Kerry...I think he's a kissa** duche...America just needs to take a more international view of things, bottom line...




now I'll probably get firestormed from the Dems and the Reps...good for me, I don't believe in either party 'so suck on it....SUCK ON IT' (quote from the best Clinton impersonation I've ever heard from SNL)

...as long as we don't do to Iraq what we did to Chile...we f***ed them up in terms of 'enstating a fair and democratic government'...we gave them a butcher worse than they had...I say we withdraw, save our troops lives, save the Iraqi people the indignity of having another country tell them what's right and wrong, and save our government's money and time...
No, even though I will probably vote for him, I don't like Kerry...I think he's a kissa** duche...

I'll start with what you didn't get quite right:

"We" didn't do anything to Chile. Chile has a long history of problems with the professional military system that predates US involvment in Chile's affairs. Pinochet was a general. He took over using the army that was loyal to him, and not to the social democrat Allende. Allende committed suicide, Pinochet walks into power without a hitch. Blame Pinochet for what happened in Chile. There are "CIA INVOLVMENT" rumors, but it's literally all unfounded. Pinochet didn't need the US to do what he did; he already had the whole of Chile's army behind him.

Now, on Iraq: pulling out at this point would be a disaster. I don't know of any single credible commentator on the subject who thinks that's a great idea. The country is not stable, there are a lot of factions that are unhappy with each other, and there are countries all around Iraq that want a piece of the pie. A US pullout now could easily lead to a massacre of the Kurds, and then a pan-arab world war for control of Iraq. Not very smart.

I do agree, though, and this counts for a lot, that Kerry is a kissass.

YOU got it wrong...
http://www.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/americas/09/19/us.cia.chile.ap/

we definatly f***ed up Chile...

That is such old news, I can't believe anyone still buys the lie that the CIA only "might" have had involvement and its "unproven", thats been a matter of public record for decades before the CIA admitted it in 2000.

word

YOU got it wrong...
http://www.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/americas/09/19/us.cia.chile.ap/

we definatly f***ed up Chile...

Read the article, then think about the difference between intelligence gathering and "f**ing up someone's country". The CIA paid some informants, and also tried to use someone who ended up being shot. That one failed attempt is most definitely CIA interference, so you are right about that. That's not what toppled Chile's government, though. Here's what the article says:

"The kidnapping attempt failed, and Gen. Rene Schneider was shot. He died two days later, the same day the Chilean congress confirmed Allende as president."

How does that constitute the CIA "f**ing up Chile"?

I was referring specifically to Pinochet's coup that resulted in Allende's suicide. That's when the human rights abuses took off in Chile, in 1973. Pinochet was in charge of the army then, and there were no CIA funded troops or officers there calling the shots for him. Here's what the article says about that:

"We were aware of coup plotting in 1973, but we did not instigate it"

So, there you have it...the CIA gathered information on Chile (I consider it not worth mentioning that the CIA gathers information in some particular place; they've probably even got resources in Chad.) But it was Pinochet who conducted a military coup.

Close, but no CIA imported cuban cigar.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/chile/
http://www.betterworldlinks.org/book62a.htm
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CIA%20Hits/Chile_CIAHits.html

Yes, I've read them and many more sources (I wrote a paper on it for one of my GE classes @ UCLA).
And like psoper said, it's pretty funny you think it's just a myth or rumor...the US didn't do it ALL, but without the US involvment it wouldn't have happened.

*Note the first web address... www.CIA.GOV ...you CANNOT argue with that!

*Note the first web address... www.CIA.GOV ...you CANNOT argue with that!


Oh, I don't know, the way he argues, I think he might try....


he can just say "its a load of crap"

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/chile/
http://www.betterworldlinks.org/book62a.htm
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CIA%20Hits/Chile_CIAHits.html

Yes, I've read them and many more sources (I wrote a paper on it for one of my GE classes @ UCLA).
And like psoper said, it's pretty funny you think it's just a myth or rumor...the US didn't do it ALL, but without the US involvment it wouldn't have happened.

*Note the first web address...www.CIA.GOV...you CANNOT argue with that!

Yeah, I did several papers on the military regimes across South America for my Latin American politics courses at Georgetown. Read the CIA link you posted on the top, that's the best one on your list. Then, point me to the part where the CIA becomes responsible for enabling Pinochet to take power. If you can do that, I'll gladly concede this one.

Oh, what the heck, I'll post it for you (This is from the first link on your list of resources, which you apparently just googled but did not read):

"Awareness of Coup Plotting in 1973.* Although CIA did not instigate the coup that ended Allende’s government on 11*September 1973, it was aware of coup-plotting by the military, had ongoing intelligence collection relationships with some plotters, and—because CIA did not discourage the takeover and had sought to instigate a coup in 1970—probably appeared to condone it.* There was no way that anyone, including CIA, could have known that Allende would refuse the putchists’ offer of safe passage out of the country and that instead—with La*Moneda Palace under bombardment from tanks and airplanes and in flames—would take his own life."

"did not instigate the coup".

Or do you have information that this is also a CIA lie? :)

Did you ignore the years of propaganda the CIA threw in there?!?! You don't think that counts as 'instigating'?!?! What the hell planet are you from man?

Same source:
"...CIA sought to instigate a coup to prevent Allende from taking office after he won a plurality in the 4 September election and before..."
"...CIA provided weapons to one of the groups..."
I guess giving them guns isn't 'instigating' either

"While Allende was in office, the 40 Committee approved the redirection of “Track I” operations that...funneled millions of dollars to strengthen opposition political parties. CIA also provided assistance to militant right-wing groups to undermine the President and create a tense environment." _CIA source again


THAT's what I call instigation.

Did you ignore the years of propaganda the CIA threw in there?!?! You don't think that counts as 'instigating'?!?! What the hell planet are you from man?

Same source:
"...CIA sought to instigate a coup to prevent Allende from taking office after he won a plurality in the 4 September election and before..."
"...CIA provided weapons to one of the groups..."
I guess giving them guns isn't 'instigating' either

They provided 3 weapons for a plot that FAILED. Read the article before you post it. The CIA was shocked by that earlier assassination in 1970 of Gen. Schneider. Its plan for a coup, (the one referred to in your post) was the failed 1970 plan. After that, the CIA realized (according to your own sources) that coup attempts would only strengthen Allende's position.

Then, along came Pinochet to do it himself. Do you honestly think that the few propaganda pieces (created by failed chilean insurgent groups) are the reason Pinochet took over? Maybe you need to reread the source...the thousands of soldiers and guns outside the palace, supplied by PINOCHET, are what took Allende down. The counter-insurgency plan was also primarily Pinochet's. Yes, the CIA gathered information...but this happens everywhere. "Gathering information" isn't sending in the cavalry to kill the indians and install your guy (not much information would come out if it did.)

So where's that link again to the CIA enabling Pinochet's overthrow?

"While Allende was in office, the 40 Committee approved the redirection of “Track I” operations that...funneled millions of dollars to strengthen opposition political parties. CIA also provided assistance to militant right-wing groups to undermine the President and create a tense environment." _CIA source again


THAT's what I call instigation.

Again, you didn't read the whole page. Here's what the page says about that operation:

"In spite of increased funding as directed by the 40*Committee, by August 1970 it was clear that the spoiling operation was not succeeding and that Allende and the UP had garnered such support that Allende was clearly the leading candidate."

This is BEFORE Pinochet. Allende won the election, and interference at that time actaully tended to strengthen his position.

I think you were to busy frothing at the mouth to see the most pertinant quote

"While Allende was in office, the 40 Committee approved the redirection of “Track I” operations that...funneled millions of dollars to strengthen opposition political parties. CIA also provided assistance to militant right-wing groups to undermine the President and create a tense environment." _CIA source again

And where did Pinochet get the money to buy the guns? Hmm...
I also think you seriously underestimate the power of propeganda...look what Hitler did with it...he convinced a whole country to hate a whole religious group with propaganda...it's scarry, but propaganda does a whole lot (that's why our military/gov't spends so much EVERYTIME we get in conflicts/wars to make propaganda).

See above. You were too busy looking for headlines and not actually reading your sources to see what I posted.

I think you were to busy frothing at the mouth to see the most pertinant quote


And where did Pinochet get the money to buy the guns? Hmm...
I also think you seriously underestimate the power of propeganda...look what Hitler did with it...he convinced a whole country to hate a whole religious group with propaganda...it's scarry, but propaganda does a whole lot (that's why our military/gov't spends so much EVERYTIME we get in conflicts/wars to make propaganda).


LOL, Pinochet didn't need to buy guns...because he was in command of Chile's army. They already HAD all the guns. The SAME ARMY that Chile had before Pinochet is the one that revolted with him. This is why Pinochet was able to take over; because he commanded the army.

And, if the propaganda campaign was what undermined Allende...why did Pinochet have to go around killing everyone who disagreed with him? They should've all hated Allende anyway, right? Well, they didnt' because the pre-1973 campaigns DID NOT WORK. Nothing the CIA did worked. What did the trick was Pinochet, a Chilean general with the support of the Chilean army.

Of course, you'd know that if you actually read the sites you listed, instead of just googling for headlines and putting them up.

The clincher:
"One CIA contact was known to be involved in an abortive coup attempt on 29 June 1973, and another was involved in the successful 11 September 1973 coup."


Why would the CIA have a contact involved in the coup...oh yeah, you're right, they were just 'gathering information' hahahahahahahaha (yeah, I'm laughing at YOU now, didn't want to get personal but you have your head so far up the gov't's collective a** all you can taste is last night's dinner)

And with that, I vow not to post on this thread again.

we're the greatest country on earth!

The clincher:
"One CIA contact was known to be involved in an abortive coup attempt on 29 June 1973, and another was involved in the successful 11 September 1973 coup."


Why would the CIA have a contact involved in the coup...oh yeah, you're right, they were just 'gathering information' hahahahahahahaha (yeah, I'm laughing at YOU now, didn't want to get personal but you have your head so far up the gov't's collective a** all you can taste is last night's dinner)

And with that, I vow not to post on this thread again.

That's exactly what "contact" as opposed to "operative" means. That's HOW they knew the coup was happening. So yes, that's what it means...the CIA pays people for information. That's exactly what is described on that page, which you would know if you would read it.

Now, whether you'll post again or not...I'll point out misrepresentation of sources whenever I see it. Or, I'll stand corrected when you show something that actually proves the point about the CIA causing Pinochet to be able to take over Chile. But simply posting one line about "contacts" and then doing a "ha ha" doesn't prove the point. It just proves that you like to read what you would like into the source.

And with that, I vow not to post on this thread again.

Wow, twice in a few hours... this sound fimiliar, MVWRX?


He's grasping at straws. It happens when anti gunner find that there is no logic to their reasoning.

...'so suck on it....SUCK ON IT' (quote from the best Clinton impersonation I've ever heard from SNL)

Hmmm....he has an irrational fear of assault weapons (phallus) but invites us to orally copulate him.
Care to tell us about your mother?