Game Fishing Forum banner

1 - 20 of 24 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,057 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
The War Card
By John Perazzo
Friday, February 01, 2008

The New York Times now tells us that a new study entitled “The War Cardâ€? has determined authoritatively that during the months leading up to the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, top officials in the Bush administrationâ€"including the president himselfâ€"made “hundreds of claims, mostly discredited since then, linking Saddam Hussein to Al Qaeda or warning that he possessed forbidden weapons.â€? The Times did not report that the study had been conducted by an organization that received more than $1.62 million from George Soros in the last few years alone. Having failed to purchase the 2004 election despite spending tens of millions of his own money, Soros is now dedicating his hefty checkbook to undoing the results of that election and humiliating its victor. And the media continue to portray this process as nonpartisan.

The co-authors of the study, Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith, say they have documented “at least 935 false statements� that were made on approximately 532 occasions. Their investigation asserts, in its final analysis, that these alleged pre-war lies “were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses.�

Remarkably, the Times did not mention that this research was sponsored jointly by two organizations whose long history of political partisanship clearly underpins its disingenuous and unsupportable conclusions.

But before we even examine who those two organizations are, we cannot help but notice that the Times report entirely ignores the very salient fact that, prior to the March, 2003, U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, there was not a single country whose intelligence agency doubted that Saddam was in the process of developing Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), and/or that he already possessed them.

Likewise, the most prominent members of the Democratic Party were uniformly confident in that same assessment. Examples of their pre-war pronouncements in this regard abound. Here are just a few of the things they said during the weeks and months immediately preceding the invasion:

John Kerry, noting that “Saddam Hussein [could] not account for all the Weapons of Mass Destruction which UNSCOM identified,� stated: “People have forgotten that for seven and a half years, we found weapons of mass destruction. We were destroying weapons of mass destruction.� “The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real,� added Kerry, “…[and] he has continued to build those weapons.�

Hillary Clinton declared unequivocally: “In the four years since the inspectors left [Iraq], intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear…that if left unchecked, [he] will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.� These claims constituted a seamless transition from the claims made by Hillary’s husband, Bill Clinton, during the latter years of his presidency in 1998 and 1999.

According to former Vice President Al Gore, “We know that [Saddam] has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country…Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.�

Senator Ted Kennedy concurred: “We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction…There is no doubt that [his] regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed.�

In John Edwards’ estimation, “Saddam Hussein’s regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies…We know that he has chemical and biological weapons…We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.�

Senator Robert Byrd professed, “We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons....�

Senator Jay Rockefeller was among the most passionate of all believers: “There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years…Saddam’s government has contact with many international terrorist organizations that likely have cells here in the United States ... Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now…And he could make those weapons available to many terrorist groups which … could…unleash a devastating attack against our citizens. I fear that greatly…I am forced to conclude, on all the evidence, that Saddam poses a significant risk…September 11 changed America. It made us realize we must deal differently with the very real threat of terrorism…There has been some debate over how ‘imminent’ a threat Iraq poses. I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated…To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? We cannot! The President has rightly called Saddam Hussein’s efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction a grave and gathering threat to Americans. The global community has tried but failed to address that threat over the past decade. I have come to the inescapable conclusion that the threat posed to America by Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction is so serious that despite the risks…we must authorize the President to take the necessary steps to deal with that threat.�
The Conductors of the Current Research

The newly published “War Card� study that accuses the Bush administration of having “lied� about its pre-war intelligence on hundreds of occasions, was sponsored jointly by the Center for Public Integrity, which the New York Times identifies as “a research group that focuses on ethics in government and public policy,� and the Fund for Independence in Journalism, which professes “to protect, defend and foster independent, high quality investigative journalism.�

It may strike you as strange that two organizations purportedly committed to “integrity� and “quality� would neglect, in such a highly publicized report, to point out that the Bush administration’s pre-war intelligence squared perfectly with the beliefs not only of the aforementioned Democrats, but also of virtually every other major Democratic figure in the United States. Yet the present study contains not a single word referencing any Democrat’s pre-invasion warnings about the threat posed by Saddam.

To understand why the Center for Public Integrity and the Fund for Independence in Journalism would so selectively reserve their accusations for the Bush White House (while giving the Democrats a free pass for whatever errors they may have made in assessing Saddam’s threat), we need only to follow the money.

Consider the Center for Public Integrity, which is headed by Bill Buzenberg, who formerly worked as an editor for Minnesota Public Radio and National Public Radio. Buzenberg is also the author of the forthcoming book (slated for release in August 2008, three months before the next presidential election), The Buying of the President: Howâ€"and Whyâ€"the Race for the Nation’s Highest Office Has Moved from the Voting Booth to the Auction Block. According to Buzenberg, his Center for Public Integrity is both “incredibly nonpartisanâ€? and “incredibly independent.â€?

Casting doubt on that claim is the fact that one of his organization’s largest financial backers is none other than George Soros’s Open Society Institute. According to the Foundation Center, in 2002 and 2003 alone, the institute gave more than $1.62 million to the Center for Public Integrity.

Each year, the Open Society Institute donates millions of dollars to a host of leftist organizations that share George Soros’s major social and political agendas. These agendas can be summarized as follows:

promoting the view that America is institutionally an oppressive nation
promoting the election of leftist political candidates throughout the United States
opposing virtually all post-9/11 national security measures enacted by U.S. government, particularly the Patriot Act
depicting American military actions as unjust, unwarranted, and immoral
promoting open borders, mass immigration, and a watering down of current immigration laws
promoting a dramatic expansion of social welfare programs funded by ever-escalating taxes
promoting social welfare benefits and amnesty for illegal aliens
defending suspected anti-American terrorists and their abetters
financing the recruitment and training of future activist leaders of the political Left
advocating America’s unilateral disarmament and/or a steep reduction in its military spending
opposing the death penalty in all circumstances
promoting socialized medicine in the United States
promoting the tenets of radical environmentalism, whose ultimate goal, as writer Michael Berliner has explained, is “not clean air and clean water, [but] rather ... the demolition of technological/industrial civilization�
bringing American foreign policy under the control of the United Nations
promoting racial and ethnic preferences in academia and the business world alike
Soros in 2004 spent some $26 million of his own money trying, unsuccessfully, to derail President Bush’s reelection bid, a task Soros called “the central focus of my life� and “a matter of life and death.� He has likened Republicans generally, and the Bush administration in particular, to “the Nazi and communist regimes� in the sense that they are “all engaged in the politics of fear.� “Indeed,� he wrote in 2006, “the Bush administration has been able to improve on the techniques used by the Nazi and Communist propaganda machines by drawing on the innovations of the advertising and marketing industries.� Soros elaborated on this theme at the January 2007 World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, where he told reporters: “America needs to . . . go through a certain de-Nazification process.�

In one of his most significant and effective efforts to reshape the American political landscape, Soros was the prime mover in the creation of the so-called “Shadow Democratic Party,â€? or “Shadow Party,â€? in 2003. This term refers to a nationwide network of unions, activist groups, and think tanks engaged in campaigning for Democrats. The network’s modus operandi includes such activities as fundraising, get-out-the-vote drives, political advertising, opposition research, and media manipulation. The Shadow Party was conceived and organized principally by George Soros, Hillary Clinton and Harold Ickesâ€"all identified with the Democratic Party’s left wing. Other key players included several members of the Bill Clinton White House.

Soros is a longtime supporter of Hillary Clinton, who, in turn, has long admired Soros and shares many of his agendas. Committed to ousting what he considers the Nazi-like Republicans from the White House, Soros will support Hillary if she wins the Democratic nomination for the presidency. But the multi-billionaire isn’t putting all his eggs in any single candidate’s basket. In January 2007 the New York Daily News reported that Soros planned initially to throw his financial weight behind Barack Obama. While many interpreted Soros’s decision as a repudiation of Clinton, Soros pledged that he absolutely would support the New York Senator were she to beat Obama in the Democratic primaries.

Because its bread is buttered, in large measure, by cash infusions from the Open Society Institute, the Center for Public Integrity can be considered neither nonpartisan nor independent. Rather, it has an immense financial incentive to produce studies exactly like “The War Card,â€? whose findings support the Open Society Institute’s views and political agendasâ€"most notably the depiction of American military actions as unnecessary and immoral, and the promotion of leftist political candidates at every level of government.

Not only is the Open Society Institute strongly pro-Democrat, but it is also a key constituent of the Peace and Security Funders Group (PSFG), an association of individual philanthropists and foundations that give money to leftist anti-war causes. PSFG’s members direct their funding toward organizations that seek to address the “root causesâ€? of war and violenceâ€"causes which PSFG identifies as: competition for natural resources, ethnic and religious differences, poverty, and social injustices.

Much of PSFG’s support is also earmarked for groups that oppose the Patriot Act and the general “overreach of intelligence agencies,â€? and groups that oppose America’s development of a missile defense system. These prioritiesâ€"which are consistent with Soros’s view that “the war on terror emphasizes military action while most territorial conflicts require political solutionsâ€?â€"make it clear that opposition to the war is a prerequisite for any organization hoping to receive Open Society Institute funding. On this count, the Center for Public Integrity clearly has been compliant.

Additional Leftwing Funders of the Center for Public Integrity

The Ford Foundation: Another key funder of the Center for Public Integrity is the Ford Foundation, which is, like the Open Society Institute, a key constituent of the Peace and Security Funders Group. Between 2002 and 2006 Ford gave the Center some $3.25 million in grants. The Foundation’s major objectives and perspectives include: the weakening of America’s homeland security and anti-terrorism measures on the theory that they constitute unacceptable assaults on civil liberties; the dissolution of American borders, coupled with the promotion of mass, unchecked immigration to the United States; the large-scale redistribution of wealth; the blaming of America for virtually every conceivable international dispute; the weakening of American military capabilities; a devotion to the principle of preferences based on race, ethnicity, gender, and a host of other demographic attributes; the condemnation of the U.S. as a racist, sexist nation that discriminates against minorities and women; the characterization of America as an unrepentant polluter whose industrial pursuits cause immense harm to the natural environment; the portrayal of the U.S. as a violator of human rights both at home and abroad; the depiction of America as an aggressively militaristic nation; and support for taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand as an inalienable right for all women.

The Arca Foundation: In 2002 this foundation, which is also a member organization of the Peace and Security Funders Group, made a $20,000 grant to the Center for Public Integrity. In recent times, Arca’s website has featured high praise for such leftist icons as Michael Moore and Howard Dean.

The Carnegie Corporation of New York: Between 2002 and 2007, this foundation gave some $1.59 million to the Center for Public Integrity. Carnegie condemns American national security measures such as the Patriot Act, which it says has “provoked fear and confusion in immigrant communities … disproportionately affecting those who are Muslim, Sikh and/or of Middle Eastern descent, including those who are U.S. citizens.�

The Nathan Cummings Foundation: In 2002-2003, this foundation made $55,000 in grants to the Center for Public Integrity. Viewing the United States as a nation rife with inequities against minorities, Cummings aims “to build a socially and economically just societyâ€? characterized by the redistribution of wealth, and promotes “humane health careâ€? for allâ€"meaning socialized medicine.

The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation: Between 2004 and 2006, Hewlett gave the Center for Public Integrity some $515,000 in grants.

The JEHT Foundation: In 2005 this Foundation gave the Center for Public Integrity $316,000 in grant money. JEHT’s “International Justice Program� (IJP) calls on America to subject itself and its citizens to the rulings of the International Criminal Court, rather than to prosecute its own war criminals. IJP also opposed America’s withdrawal from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty that was signed with the now-nonexistent Soviet Union. In JEHT’s view, unilateral military action by the U.S. is invariably unjustified.

The Joyce Foundation: Between 2002 and 2004, this foundation funneled $350,000 in grants to the Center for Public Integrity. A notable recent member of the Joyce Foundation’s Board of Directors was Barack Obama.

The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation: In 2003 alone, the MacArthur Foundation gave the Center for Public Integrity fully $3.6 million in grant money. A member organization of the Peace and Security Funders Group, MacArthur ranks as one of the largest private philanthropic foundations in the United States and supports hundreds of leftist organizations, particularly environmentalist groups. The MacArthur Foundation favors redistributive economic policies that can avert “costly conflicts between haves and have-nots.� Such policies are typically at odds with military spending, which is viewed as a drain on supposedly vital social welfare programs.

The Pew Charitable Trusts: In 2003-2004, Pew gave the Center for Public Integrity $1 million in grants. Pew supports myriad organizations that are passionately anti-corporate and anti-capitalist, while it simultaneously holds enormous investments in major corporations. For instance, while Pew invests in Exxon-Mobil, it gives money to Greenpeace, the Ruckus Society, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, Public Citizen, Global Exchange, the EarthJustice Legal Defense Fund, Friends of the Earth, the Sierra Club, the World Resources Institute, the World Wildlife Fund, the Wilderness Society, the Environmental Defense Fund, Trust for Public Land, the Environmental Working Group, the Rainforest Alliance, the Izaak Walton League of America, the Rainforest Action Network, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Nature Conservancy, and a host of other environmentalist groups that view Exxon-Mobil as an ecological menace.

The Rockefeller Brothers Fund (RBF):A member organization of the Peace and Security Funders Group, from 2004-2006 this Foundation gave the Center for Public Integrity $150,000 in grants. RBF’s “Peace and Security Program� seeks to foster “greater understanding between Muslim and Western Societies.� Placing responsibility for the current inter-cultural disharmony largely on the United States, RBF says that America must increase its “efforts to ensure that [its] policies and behaviors reflect an understanding of the complexity and diversity of Muslim societies and contribute to mutually respectful, productive relations with those societies.� No mention is made of Muslim nations’ responsibility to reciprocate in kind; nor is there any reference to the radical Islamic movements that have declared open war against the West.

The Scherman Foundation: From 2002-2004, this Foundation, which is a member organization of the Peace and Security Funders Group, gave $45,000 in grants to the Center for Public Integrity. The Foundation’s president, Sandra Silverman, has in recent years contributed money personally to the political campaigns of John Kerry, Bill and Hillary Clinton, and Ted Kennedy.

The Schumann Center for Media and Democracy: In 2005 the Schumann Center, whose stated purpose is “to renew the democratic process through cooperative acts of citizenship,� gave $500,000 to the Center for Public Integrity. Schumann’s grant-making is directed heavily toward organizations whose values are anti-corporate, anti-free market, and anti-capitalist. The Schumann Center is headed by PBS icon Bill Moyers, whose son John is the Executive Director of the Florence Fund, which is funded by donors of the Schumann Foundation. The Florence Fund has close ties to anti-war groups like the Win Without War coalition.

The Town Creek Foundation: In 2004 the Town Creek Foundation gave $40,000 to the Center for Public Integrity. A member organization of the Peace and Security Funders Group, Town Creek supports initiatives that “challenge and critique the military budget�; “encourage greater public debate and deliberation about national budget priorities�; and “promote the elimination of nuclear weapons and testing, strengthen arms control programs, or seek responsible weapons disposal programs.� Perhaps the most notable beneficiary of Town Creek’s philanthropy is the massive anti-war coalition United For Peace and Justice, led by Leslie Cagan, a longtime committed socialist who proudly aligns her politics with those of Fidel Castro’s Communist Cuba.
Like the Center for Public Integrity, the Fund for Independence in Journalism (FIJ) has received financial support from the aforementioned Nathan Cummings Foundation and the Schumann Center for Media and Democracy. Other notable donors to FIJ’s cause include the Rockefeller Family Fund and the Streisand Foundation.

The foundations named in this article as funders of the Center for Public Integrity and the Fund for Independence in Journalism, are among the world’s most prolific financiers of leftwing causes. They support many hundreds of far-left organizations, including: the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, the American Civil Liberties Union, People for the American Way, the NAACP, the American Friends Service Committee, the National Council of La Raza, the Center for Constitutional Rights, the National Lawyers Guild, Fenton Communications, ACORN, Global Exchange, Human Rights Watch, the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the William J. Brennan Center for Justice, Veterans for Peace, Media Matters for America, The Nation Institute, the Ruckus Society, the Institute for Policy Studies, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the Institute for Public Accuracy, Sojourners, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, Mother Jones, and the Lynne Stewart Defense Committee.

These funders and their beneficiaries perceive the United States as a nation whose allegedly aggressive and militaristic natureâ€"manifested in premature, ill-advised, unjustified rushes to warâ€"is the chief source of Western conflict with the Muslim world today. They aim to mend these alleged flaws by means of a radical societal transformation, beginning with the election of more far-left Democrats to positions of political influence.

Collectively, the foundations named in this article are the reason why “The War Card� reached the utterly unfounded conclusion that the Bush administration lied about the Iraqi threat. Quite simply, they paid for it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Perazzo is the Managing Editor of DiscoverTheNetworks and is the author of The Myths That Divide Us: How Lies Have Poisoned American Race Relations. For more information on his book, click here. E-mail him at [email protected]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,566 Posts
I notice since Rory has stopped C&P so much you seem to have taken on the mantle of finding every bit of Bull5hit that you can find. Just how many hours do you spend Jabba trolling thro the vast expense of the net or have you some must go to sites amongst your favourites.

I see once again you are promoting Nazis, since you change your name you seem to promote them more and more. I am pleased to note however the Lefties and some Righties still refer to you as Jabba as they do not want to promote the Nazis or anybody who had anything to do with them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,057 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
You're so silly Sir John. If you could tell the difference twixt 5hit and Shinola you would probably have your own shoe shine stand. Since even allowing the existence of a bit of history is "promotion" to you, I fail to see how you can find a crevice to discuss anything. Skorzeny is no worse than the Sir John appelation. John Cromwell? John the Loo? Sir toilet? How does one get a cockneyed list to their typed word?
I think it would be fun to talk about the Evil Ju87 or perhaps the diabolical Me109. Or even Kurt Tank's sinister FW190. Course that would be promoting them. You should back off those silly pills for a day or so Sir Loo.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,566 Posts
As far as I am concerned he was an ardent Nazi thro and thro. Or are you forgetting what he did after the war as well.

Like I say some here don't like the name change and I am not talking just about the Lefties. They may not challenge you to change it but I do and I hope you will.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,057 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
I will change it when I feel like or when Bruce says I cannot use the name of a German of History. Then I will become that Oliver C that buried so many of the Brit Papists. Silly! Silly! Silly!

Too bad you cannot spend more effort on the content of the post rather than the pseudonym of the poster.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,566 Posts
taken on the mantle of finding every bit of Bull5hit that you can find

Thought I had made my point.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,685 Posts
You should not post stuff like this all it does is fire up the name calling. You know Webo, Divioder,Toad, Eddie and the others have cut and paste or commented on 935 false staements as beeing factual and correct. Now they either have to go back and edit those comments to be the ethicla people they claim to be or start the name calling to divert attention away from the fact that they have no intention of editing their misstatements.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,057 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
snicker I know. Sir Loo is typical of those that if they don't like the data it must be BS. How's the cliche go? 'Don't dazzle me with data. I prefer to be baffled with Bu775hit.' There are only two responses to be expected anyway. one: Sir Loo typifies. two: total nonresponse. Anything said only makes it worse.
Proves one fact, you can buy any report you want as long as you are willing to pay the price. Soros has deep pockets and so do some of those leftist Foundations. Foundations indeed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,149 Posts
http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-A ... 0385511841

“Fascists,â€? “Brownshirts,â€? “jackbooted stormtroopersâ€?â€"such are the insults typically hurled at conservatives by their liberal opponents. Calling someone a fascist is the fastest way to shut them up, defining their views as beyond the political pale. But who are the real fascists in our midst?

Liberal Fascism offers a startling new perspective on the theories and practices that define fascist politics. Replacing conveniently manufactured myths with surprising and enlightening research, Jonah Goldberg reminds us that the original fascists were really on the left, and that liberals from Woodrow Wilson to FDR to Hillary Clinton have advocated policies and principles remarkably similar to those of Hitler's National Socialism and Mussolini's Fascism.

Contrary to what most people think, the Nazis were ardent socialists (hence the term “National socialismâ€?). They believed in free health care and guaranteed jobs. They confiscated inherited wealth and spent vast sums on public education. They purged the church from public policy, promoted a new form of pagan spirituality, and inserted the authority of the state into every nook and cranny of daily life. The Nazis declared war on smoking, supported abortion, euthanasia, and gun control. They loathed the free market, provided generous pensions for the elderly, and maintained a strict racial quota system in their universitiesâ€"where campus speech codes were all the rage. The Nazis led the world in organic farming and alternative medicine. Hitler was a strict vegetarian, and Himmler was an animal rights activist.
" alt=":D" title="Very Happy" />achment:emiu35m7]

Loren was very excited after seeing the fish jump, we knew it had some size to it. He gently talked to Cadhan about how exactly to fight the fish and how to react to its runs and jumps. The fight was really an awesome spectacle to see, as I had never caught a steelhead of this size in my many years of fishing. I was so happy to see that his 1st was going to be a nice one maybe even a trophy. Cadhan faught the fish like a champ and Lorens top quality gear did the trick for us.

The fish was a beautifuly colored native buck with a perfect rose tint in the cheek and following back along the lateral line. We did'nt measure girth, measured 36" in length, maybe someone can guess weight. We guess somewhere around 22-24 lbs, and fish was released healthy.

I hope that some of you can catch a steelhead like this yourselves. I hope that someday soon I can catch one like it myself. Give Loren a call, he is listed in the guides section on the site. I would reccomend a trip with him even if he were'nt a good friend. His boats and gear are top notch. His humor and gentle demeanor are perfect for a being a guide and you can tell he loves fishing. You can't help but have a great time with him.

What a great day we had!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thanks Loren you're the best.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,270 Posts
The only one I ever call names is YOU queen. :D :D

Skorzeny's C&P's don't cause me any discomfort whatsoever. In fact... if they're more than a paragraph long I don't even read them. I toss him some sh!t over the fact that they ALWAYS come from one mindless right-wing Kool-Aid factory or another... but their content in reality couldn't concern me any less. :cool:

In case you haven't figured it out yet... it's a GAME that we all (except you) play here. :?

If Skorzeny derives happiness from the fact that he thinks he's "gotten one over on the liberals" here with his propaganda C&P's... that's great!

If my comments on said articles helps bring him that happiness... then I'm glad I could oblige. Tup:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,566 Posts
You can C&P as much cr8p as you want but in the end they don't mean anything. You are not going to vote for these fellas. I could search out lots of cr8p on the Rep candidates and C&P it here, but it would not mean a damn thing.

I do have a beef about Jabba's new name and I do think that he should change it. He can point out that he choose it because the man was a soldier but what he fails to point out is that he was a Nazi thro and thro. Even after the war was over. But being a Rep he washes over that fact. In fact as I have said before I did not know about the fella until I read stories of what he had done. Jabba pointed out these to us all. Go check out the history of the man. I did.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,057 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
For You Sir Loo.

ART KRAMER'S WWII STORIES
LUNCH WITH SS STURMGRUPENNFUHRER OTTO SKORZENY


I was in Madrid in 1970 on business shooting TV commercials for the Eastman Kodak Company. This was a sunny lazy Sunday at the Ritz hotel. I was nursing the last of my excellent room service coffee when the phone rang. "Ola Artur. Have lunch with us today. OK? Great. Meet you at the Madrid Tennis club at 2 this afternoon. I have some friends I want you to meet. See you later".

I arrived at the Club to see my friends seated and enjoying drinks. As I walked toward them and my friend Robert rose and said, "Artur. How nice, and here comes Otto" I turned and behind me was an absolutely huge imposing giant of a man. Maybe 6'4" 300 pounds. Face scarred and with a beat up look like a fighter who has had a few too many fights, He thrust out his hand and said "Otto" I took his hand and he said " Otto Skorzeny". I said, "Arthur Kramer" but I thought "Nazi son of a bitch" and was sorry I had shaken his hand.

We all sat down. I expected Skorzeny to be course crude and overbearing. In fact he was extremely polite and soft-spoken. His manner was so courteous and gentlemanly that I found it very difficult to hate him on a face to face personal level. The conversation covered the weather, the great food at this club, what a fine fellow Robert was how did I like Spain? No talk of war at all. Somehow, here in neutral Spain 25 years after the war it seemed as though war talk between ex-enemies was neither polite nor called for.

I found out later that Robert had told Otto about my military experiences in detail. I guess neither one of us cared to dig up the past on this warm sunny Sunday afternoon. I found out later that Skorzeny got those scars dueling during his school days in Austria. After the war he was acquitted of all war crimes and all charges were dropped. During the lunch he spoke to me in English, to Robert in French and to Robert's wife Rosie in German. He was impressive, not just on the physical level. But he was man of rather high intelligence. And he was the man who rescued Mussolini as one of his many exploits and was generally acknowledged by all sides as the most successful commando of WW II.
We had finished lunch. We all exchanged good byes, but Skorzeny and I didn't shake hands. We just nodded cordially at one another. And then we parted.

Otto died in 1975 in Madrid. After I heard of his death I regretted not having offered him my hand when we parted on that memorable afternoon.


The moral of the story is, if you want to hate a man, don't have lunch with him.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,566 Posts
Here is my bit of C&P. Remember it was you who pointed out the original link.

Unlike many of his fellow Nazis, Skorzeny never denounced Hitler or National Socialism, and remained unapologetic for his actions during the war. For nearly thirty years, he devoted much time to thwarting Nazi hunters, though Skorzeny was rarely a target himself.

In 1964, famed Nazi hunter Simon Wiesenthal located Franz Paul Stangl, former commander of the Treblinka death camp, in Brazil. However, the Brazilian police refuse to arrest him and Austrian authorities refused to extradite him. For three years, Skorzeny bribed police and Austrian officials until an anti-Nazi governor was elected in Stangl's state, and Wiesenthal was finally able to arrange the war criminal's arrest and extradition.

Skorzeny also used long trial delays as a tactic to prevent his comrades from facing justice. Delays of ten years were not uncommon, due to bribes doled out to judges and prosecutors. He was also very good at hiding his fellow Nazis. When Adolf Eichman was captured by Israeli agents in Buenos Aires in 1960, Skorzeny sent word to other Nazis in the city to seek safer locations immediately. One of these was Josef Mengele, Auschwitz's "Angel of Death," who was responsible for sending tens of thousands to their deaths in the gas chambers, and thanks to Skorzeny and ODESSA, never paid for his crimes.

Protecting his fellow Nazis also involved killing any who attempted to squeal. In 1965 Hubert Curkers, the "Monster of Riga" who helped massacre 32,000 Latvian Jews in 1941, offered to reveal Mengele's location to Jewish agents for $150,000 and a guarantee of his own safety. A few days later Curkers' body was found in Montevideo, Uruguay with his skull crushed


The rest of the story can be found here.

http://homepages.ius.edu/RVEST/SkorzenyDr2.htm
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,057 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
No big surprise, there are always two or more sides to any story. However, you must admit it is interesting that he was exonerated in the war crimes trials. And maybe, maybe not, loyal to a fault. It is one thing to toss accusations around like you are prone to do. It is another to find the corroborating data.
Bottom line, You seem not to like Otto Skorzeny. I personally never met the man and have much contradictory data to define him. One thing seems solid; he was one hell of a commando. Your SAS would appreciate that.

btw Have you read any of Elie Weisel's works, 'Dawn' for instance? (1986 Nobel Peace Prize Winner in case you never heard of him)

Webo you hurt my feelings. In an attempt to be better than fair I post occasionally middle of the road or perhaps even a bit left of center articles of interest. I thought you would appreciate such items. But again, you disregard content in favor of partisanship. Your loss.
What's frustrating is the fact that a C&p about an idea of interest seldom starts a discussion. It just starts a name calling session and even worse some ninnyhammers cannot even see around a pseudonym. Paranoia at work I guess.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,294 Posts
I've been to Dachau on a grey, depressing, October day and felt such a tremendous sense of sorrow that I was overtaken with emotion.....I would desire no affiliation with them. (nazi scum).

History and it's incessant calling, "lest we forget", could be at least assuaged, were it not for the defense of such ugly examples of **** Sapiens.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,566 Posts
I never said he was a war criminal but I do say he was an ardent Nazi and these facts bear that out. If he just stopped when the war was over then he would have been okay. But you are over looking the fact that he continued until he died. There are still old men who get together in Germany and rejoice in the times of Hitler.

Let me ask you another thing are you then backing the skin-heads who are trying to resurect all the things that the Nazi stood for.

As R&W says "lest we forget"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,270 Posts
I didn't mean to hurt your feelings Sko. I'm sorry for that. :oops:

My eyesight ain't that great anymore and I don't have the time nor interest to read a lengthy article on my computer screen. :cool:

I DO usually scan the first paragraph though... which invariably contains some version of "it's ALL the liberal's / Democrat's fault"... and I know from that point forward that all objectivity is out the window. :(

Usually I can tell just by seeing the author's name. wink:

I was under the impression that you enjoyed a negative response to these articles? conf:

After all... isn't the whole point just to prove how wrong the liberal viewpoint is? :p
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,149 Posts
As we all know Englishmen don't have the best record of accurately judging the character and true intentions of others. wink:



 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,057 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
Tee Hee Bb I know who that guy is, that's " Peace in our time" Neville. A photogenic pair if I ever...

Don't be silly Sir John. Nazis or National Socialists or any other form of socialists are anathemas to any thinking entity.
The skin heads are just a bunch of cultists looking for a cause, IMHO. I'm surprised they haven't made Jim Jones an honorary member, posthumously of course.
There are those that celebrate the atrocities the Spanish inflicted on the Aztecs.
There is the Flat Earth Society, and there are those that celebrate the fact the Il Duce made the trains run on time.
The fact that there may be according to you some OFs in Germany and else where that celebrate Adolph's insanity is sad. The atrocities inflicted on Europe and the Jews is so bad as to be nearly unbelievable that a civilized nation of normally hard working, intelligent people could aid and abet the process.
Ranks right up there with Boleshiveks and Stalin killing 30 million Russians and Eastern Europeans.
Cannot forget pedophile Mao, he too has his viable celebrants and is another killer of millions.

What's the point?
We should never forget. But unfortunately we will. It's our nature.
Even today the genocidal nuts are at work out there.
And another Pearl Harbor will probably happen in spades. Just because we get lazy and don't want to pay the piper. And we have way too many Sir Neville Chamberlains in our society. Peace at any price.
 
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
Top