OT - "Who Cares"?
Gerrie Collins
Thomas Muething
> Ahh... an editorial that tells it like it is.
>
>
> http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/editorial/578.htm
An editorial in the "new York Post" - Who cares?
Thomas
--
"There's just two things in this world that I can't stand. It's people
who are intolerant of other people's culture ... and the Dutch!"
(Michael Caine, in "Austin Powers: Goldmember")
Marc Perman
"Gerrie Collins" <gerrie...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:a39a103.03060...@posting.google.com...
> Ahh... an editorial that tells it like it is.
> http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/editorial/578.htm
Yes, the Post, a/k/a the Fox News Channel Print Edition, remains
blissfully isolationist. Pass the Freedom Fries!
Marc Perman
HPLeft
"Marc Perman" <mper...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:MlREa.118583$h42....@twister.nyc.rr.com...
What the pea-brains at the Post (and its readership) don't appear to
understand is that the more people who hate Americans, the more people
available to kill Americans. It's no wonder that the Advertising Director
of Bloomingdales' once told Peter Kalikow, the former publisher of the Post
(before Murdock returned to the scene of his original crime): "Your readers
are our shoplifters."
Matt C
Gerrie Collins
> Gerrie Collins wrote:
> > Ahh... an editorial that tells it like it is.
> > http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/editorial/578.htm
> An editorial in the "new York Post" - Who cares?
>
> Thomas
Those who don't lock-step to the biased, party-line babble emanating
from NYT editorials and *some* of its columnists.
Gerrie
Edward Waffle
>Thomas Muething <tmuethingBUGGE...@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:<3EE3A69C...@t-online.de>...
>> Gerrie Collins wrote:
>
>
>> > Ahh... an editorial that tells it like it is.
>
>> > http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/editorial/578.htm
>
>
>
>> An editorial in the "new York Post" - Who cares?
The New York Post has editorials?
Who knew?
I thought they just had page six.
Eric Grunin
wrote:
>Ahh... an editorial that tells it like it is.
>
>
>http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/editorial/578.htm
Ah yes, the Post -- I bring home free copies from work so my dog can
do the appropriate editing.
Henk van Tuijl
"Marc Perman" <mper...@nyc.rr.com> schreef in bericht
news:MlREa.118583$h42....@twister.nyc.rr.com...
>
> "Gerrie Collins" <gerrie...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:a39a103.03060...@posting.google.com...
> > Ahh... an editorial that tells it like it is.
It is a sad story, really ... from
whatever point of view.
Henk
Roland van Gaalen
June 8, 2003
Lost Iraqi Treasures Found
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
BAGHDAD, Iraq, June 7 (AP) - The ancient treasures of Nimrud, unaccounted
for since Baghdad fell two months ago, have been located in good condition
in the country's Central Bank - in a secret vault-inside-a-vault submerged
in sewage water, American officials said today.
They also said that fewer than 50 items from the Iraq Museum's main
exhibition collection remain missing after the looting and destruction that
followed the capture of Baghdad by United States forces.
The artifacts - gold earrings, necklaces, bowls and flasks - were found
several days ago when the vault was opened, one official said.
The Nimrud treasures date to about 900 B.C.
An official with the American-led occupation force said at a news briefing
that the number of artifacts looted or lost from the Iraq Museum in Baghdad
had been exaggerated. Of the 170,000 initially thought missing, about 3,000
objects remain unaccounted for. Of those, only 47 are main exhibition items,
the official said.
Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
Samir Golescu
> What the pea-brains at the Post (and its readership) don't appear to
> understand is that the more people who hate Americans, the more people
> available to kill Americans.
Why the name-calling, Matt? Why should one be called "pea-brains" for
reading, among many others, New York Post? Am I perhaps "pea-brains"
because I am also browsing leftist outlets such as The Nation, the (imo
pathetic, but I wanna be informed) Salon.com and even the excellent The
New Republic? As respects the substantive, relatively speaking, part
of your retort, you probably know just as well as I do that the syllogism
you expose, while at least arguably logical, is far from being
inexpugnable or self-evident. On the other side of the coin, it may be
argued that at times people don't kill primarily because they "hate" (in
that case we would have millions of neighbors murdered in NY every day)
but because *they feel they can get away with it*. It seems that the
current American administration is doing its best to dissipate this
foolishness. How well it works (or not) we shall see.
regards,
SG
Samir Golescu
>> It is a sad story, really ... from whatever point of view.
Frankly I was more saddened by the horrible indifference manifested in the
West in what regards the developments in Congo. (A "Bravo" to the French
though for sending these days UN-correlated peace-keeping forces in the
way of harm.)
However, where were the demonstrations of millions in the Western Europe
asking for a stop to the senseless, cave-age-like violence in Congo?
It still looks like most European "pacifists" are hating -- and willing
and happy to blame -- the US than be really concerned about the welfare
and survival of other people. I can find no other explanation for the
indignation over the *comparatively* innocuous Iraq matter overpowering,
dwarfing almost totally any concern for an ethnical disaster with more
than 50.000 victims and 500.000 refugees in the Ituri region only.
regards,
SG
HPLeft
"Samir Golescu" <gol...@uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.31.030609...@ux8.cso.uiuc.edu...
>
>
> > What the pea-brains at the Post (and its readership) don't appear to
> > understand is that the more people who hate Americans, the more people
> > available to kill Americans.
>
> Why the name-calling, Matt? Why should one be called "pea-brains" for
> reading, among many others, New York Post?
Why? Because I have lived with the NY Post for 47 years, and can say first
hand that since Murdock took over the paper, it speaks to the lowest common
dominator possible. To take the Post seriously is to have left your brain
home that day. Even their Sports section is now a sad muddle of uninformed
opinion masquerading as reporting (and, yes, they have very much dropped the
distinction between a reporter reporting the facts, and a columnist
expressing a opinion), and unsubstantiated rumor masquerading as fact.
That's why. Buying into this stuff is IMHO bad for humanity and bad for
democracy. In comparison, Mort Zukerman's conservative/middle-of-the-road
Daily News is a model of journalistic integrity and restraint.
Beyond that, to your political points, all I'm going to say in this group is
that I have this very strong feeling that the worm has turned in regard to
Mr. Bush, and his reputation in this country is likely to be far lower 2
years from now than it was a few months ago. I'm not going to engage in any
long-winded, pointless debate in this group, since it's clear that
everyone's mind is already made up, and such a completely pointless effort
would also be off-topic.
Matt C
Samir Golescu
On Mon, 9 Jun 2003, HPLeft wrote:
> > > What the pea-brains at the Post (and its readership) don't appear to
> > > understand is that the more people who hate Americans, the more people
> > > available to kill Americans.
> >
> > Why the name-calling, Matt? Why should one be called "pea-brains" for
> > reading, among many others, New York Post?
>
> Why? Because I have lived with the NY Post for 47 years, and can say first
> hand that since Murdock took over the paper, it speaks to the lowest common
> dominator possible.
Dominator? Not picking on a slip, just finding it amusing.( :
> To take the Post seriously is to have left your brain home that day.
I am not taking seriously newspapers, only individual journalists. No
innuendo on the quality of my brains(:, however eloquent, will have me
change that opinion. How can one refer to NYTimes as a completely
unserious and unworthy of being read newspaper because of one Jason Blair?
How can one dismiss NYPost *completely* as long as at least some of their
editorialists are tremendously versed in their topics of choice (e.g.,
Daniel Pipes)? (I hardly go anywhere else in the pages of NYP.)
However, I am glad to see that, after the first argument "the pea-brains
at the Post (and its readership). . .", one came back and nuanced subtly
"To take the Post seriously is to have left your brain home that day."
Now I can see the light.( :
regards,
SG
Gerrie Collins
Hmmmm. Seems like some mistakes in 'historical' judgment continue to
thrive. Recalling the one in the 18th century where manuscript pages
of the St. Matthew's Passion (Bach) were used as meat
wrappers........... :-)
HPLeft
>
> > > > What the pea-brains at the Post (and its readership) don't appear to
> > > > understand is that the more people who hate Americans, the more
people
> > > > available to kill Americans.
> > >
> > > Why the name-calling, Matt? Why should one be called "pea-brains" for
> > > reading, among many others, New York Post?
> >
> > Why? Because I have lived with the NY Post for 47 years, and can say
first
> > hand that since Murdock took over the paper, it speaks to the lowest
common
> > dominator possible.
>
> Dominator? Not picking on a slip, just finding it amusing.( :
I hate these spell check programs. I have to pay as much attention to them
as I do anything else.
Matt C
Stephen Magpie
> > understand is that the more people who hate Americans, the more people
> > available to kill Americans.
>
> Why the name-calling, Matt? Why should one be called "pea-brains" for
> reading, among many others, New York Post?
He didn't say that. If you insert the word 'among' before 'its' you
will have the meaning you infer, but without that addition it's simply
not there. I don't suppose the coup in Mauritania has anything to do
with growing support for opposition to secular regimes in largely
Moslem countries in response to US aggression across the Arab world?
Have you heard about the attacks on non-veiled women in Iraq in recent
days? Just what George Bush had in mind, eh? Maybe Ceausescu's biggest
crime was his prohibition of abortion?
Gerrie Collins
> "Marc Perman" <mper...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:MlREa.118583$h42....@twister.nyc.rr.com...
> >
> > "Gerrie Collins" <gerrie...@cox.net> wrote in message
> > news:a39a103.03060...@posting.google.com...
> > > Ahh... an editorial that tells it like it is.
>
> > > http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/editorial/578.htm
> What the pea-brains at the Post (and its readership) don't appear to
> understand is that the more people who hate Americans, the more people
> available to kill Americans.
If this 2-cents opinion is offered as a 'bit' of (profound
philosophical?) 'wisdom' to the topic, then I expect the stock in
pea-brains to soar. Better pea-brains than no-brains.
Gerrie C
"All good foreign policy has two core aims — to protect the security
of the people, and to extend their prosperity." – Rupert Murdoch
Edward Waffle
Eric Grunin wrote in message ...
One reason "Hustler" magazine is sold is that commuters can use it to hide
the "New York Post" they are reading.
If anyone is seen with the Post they never admit to buying it--they always
say "I picked this up on the subway".
Gerrie Collins
> gerrie...@cox.net (Gerrie Collins) wrote in
> news:a39a103.03060...@posting.google.com:
>
> > Ahh... an editorial that tells it like it is.
> >
> >
> > http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/editorial/578.htm
>
>
> have seen on this topic) can be found here:
>
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/06/04/nyt.friedman/
>
>
> JV
Very discerning article Joseph. Thomas Friedman is one of the
'liberal' columnists at the NYT that I read fairly regularly. I don't
always agree with him but he speaks from in-depth knowledge and
understanding and his ideas do not seem to be guided by a flaming
party-line obeisance to 'left' thinking. In this writing, he proves
this again with conclusions that even hard core protagonists must
reluctantly regard as correct.
GC
Marc Perman
in message news:<3EE3A69C...@t-online.de>...
> > Gerrie Collins wrote:
> > > Ahh... an editorial that tells it like it is.
>
> > > http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/editorial/578.htm
>
> > An editorial in the "new York Post" - Who cares?
>
> Those who don't lock-step to the biased, party-line babble
emanating
> from NYT editorials and *some* of its columnists.
That The Times is considered a left-wing newspaper is a sure sign
of how warped America has become these days.
Marc Perman
Marc Perman
>
> Beyond that, to your political points, all I'm going to say in
this group is
> that I have this very strong feeling that the worm has turned in
regard to
> Mr. Bush, and his reputation in this country is likely to be far
lower 2
> years from now than it was a few months ago. I'm not going to
engage in any
> long-winded, pointless debate in this group, since it's clear
that
> everyone's mind is already made up, and such a completely
pointless effort
> would also be off-topic.
I predict that Bush will be reelected easily, but will face an
increasingly disastrous second term as the real consequences of
his neo-con agenda become clear to the average citizen.
To get back on-topic, I also predict that the NY Philharmonic and
its new music director David Robertson will sign an exclusive
recording contract in 2005 with DG after a mini-bidding war among
the major labels to take advantage of the move to Carnegie.
Marc Perman
A. Brain
>
> "HPLeft" <ma...@hpleft.com> wrote in message
> news:w32Fa.4748$ly.20...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> >
> > Beyond that, to your political points, all I'm going to say in
> this group is
> > that I have this very strong feeling that the worm has turned in
> regard to
> > Mr. Bush, and his reputation in this country is likely to be far
> lower 2
> > years from now than it was a few months ago. I'm not going to
> engage in any
> > long-winded, pointless debate in this group, since it's clear
> that
> > everyone's mind is already made up, and such a completely
> pointless effort
> > would also be off-topic.
>
> I predict that Bush will be reelected easily, but will face an
> increasingly disastrous second term as the real consequences of
> his neo-con agenda become clear to the average citizen.
Bush is vulnerable, but unless the indolent
press or the apathetic public starts caring
about the total lack of integrity shown by
this administration, or the mass destruction
it has wreaked on the economy, civil liberties,
the environment, etc. Bush could win re-
election just based on his "aw shucks"
personality. What is most baffling is the
passivity of the Democrats, given the record
of dissembling and deception that the
Bushies are guilty of.
The entire 2000 Bush campaign was nothing
but one "Big Lie" after another, and it's
the same thing once he got into office.
That a President could lie to the world,
to the UN, to our troops, and take
them to war, and survive politically is
astounding. "Who cares?" indeed.
But as Mencken said, "no one ever
went broke underestimating the
taste of the American people".
This month's "Vanity Fair" has a
perceptive article about press
coverage by James Wolcott.
> To get back on-topic, I also predict that the NY Philharmonic and
> its new music director David Robertson will sign an exclusive
> recording contract in 2005 with DG after a mini-bidding war among
> the major labels to take advantage of the move to Carnegie.
This is supposed to be "Off-topic".
--
A. Brain
Remove NOSPAM for email.
Dan Koren
Perhaps it's just the American left that's warped?
Things are relative, you know....
dk
Dan Koren
Make sure not to forget the Freedom Mayonnaise
and the Freedom Mustard Gas -- especially for
you! ;-)
dk
Dan Koren
You wish....
dk
Dan Koren
2005 sounds just about right. By then the Dresden Staatskapelle,
the Gewandhaus Orchester and the Wiener Philharmoniker will sign
exclusive recording contracts with the US Department of Defense
-- after a real mini-war! ;-)
dk
Dan Koren
"Henk van Tuijl" <hvan...@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:3ee47460$0$49104$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
Does the Dutch peas keeping corpse
have a point of view? They've done
such a terrific job in Indonesia!!
dk
Dan Koren
news:Pine.GSO.4.31.030609...@ux8.cso.uiuc.edu...
>
>
>
> Frankly I was more saddened by the horrible indifference manifested in the
> West in what regards the developments in Congo. (A "Bravo" to the French
> though for sending these days UN-correlated peace-keeping forces in the
> way of harm.)
>
Too bad the French didn't quite manage to get rid of
the French trained Empereur Bokasa before he filled
his fridge with human bodies....
dk
Thomas Muething
>
> Those who don't lock-step to the biased, party-line babble emanating
> from NYT editorials and *some* of its columnists.
"Party-line babble" ? :lol:
Thomas
--
"There's just two things in this world that I can't stand. It's people
who are intolerant of other people's culture ... and the Dutch!"
(Michael Caine, in "Austin Powers: Goldmember")
torcik wedlowski
wrote:
>
>
>>> It is a sad story, really ... from whatever point of view.
>
>Frankly I was more saddened by the horrible indifference manifested in the
>West in what regards the developments in Congo. (A "Bravo" to the French
>though for sending these days UN-correlated peace-keeping forces in the
>way of harm.)
>
>
Like the Un led peace keeping forces have made a difference in
Africa, especially in the Congo
Samir Golescu
> >Frankly I was more saddened by the horrible indifference manifested in the
> >West in what regards the developments in Congo. (A "Bravo" to the French
> >though for sending these days UN-correlated peace-keeping forces in the
> >way of harm.)
>
> Like the Un led peace keeping forces have made a difference in
> Africa, especially in the Congo
They certainly try to and they deserve respect. . . it will not be easier
for the French force to keep a hold on generalized ethnical bloodshed in
the African region than for the US forces to keep the chaos with which
Iraqis make the life of Iraqis difficult under a minimal check. . .
I don't blame the French peace-keeping forces (among the better trained
around, if anything) for the disgusting games of the French President.
The latter holds the hardly enviable distinction of being among the
political leaders being honored with having their face portrayed on the
tacky prayer mats in Gaza bought by Islamic fundamentalists. Who are the
other two sharing the honor with Jacques Chirac? Yasser Arafat and Saddam
Hussein. (I didn't make this one up!)
regards,
SG
Dan Koren
Of course they did. They added variety to the menu.
Check http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/6066952.htm
dk
torcik wedlowski
wrote:
>
>
What is really sad is that when a dozen people are killed by suicide
bomber it makes the world headline, but in Africa where several
million people are killed in the various conflicts over the years it
hardly make the news. Too bad Africa does not have lots of oil
Thomas Muething
>
> (I didn't make this one up!)
>
No one cares either way.
Ramon Khalona
> news:w32Fa.4748$ly.20...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> >
> > Beyond that, to your political points, all I'm going to say in
> this group is
> > that I have this very strong feeling that the worm has turned in
> regard to
> > Mr. Bush, and his reputation in this country is likely to be far
> lower 2
> > years from now than it was a few months ago. I'm not going to
> engage in any
> > long-winded, pointless debate in this group, since it's clear
> that
> > everyone's mind is already made up, and such a completely
> pointless effort
> > would also be off-topic.
>
> I predict that Bush will be reelected easily, but will face an
> increasingly disastrous second term as the real consequences of
> his neo-con agenda become clear to the average citizen.
Said average citizen better wake up and do something to prevent it
from happening. The following article describes in detail the current
Republican strategy to consolidate power
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/13/opinion/13KRUG.html
Before anyone discounts the source as some radical left-wing
ideologue, I would challenge him/her to say what from the above
article is untrue. If anything, Krugman understates his case by
saying:
"
RK
torcik wedlowski
Do French peacekeepers taste better with red wine or white?
Owen Hartnett
Khalona <rkha...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Said average citizen better wake up and do something to prevent it
> from happening. The following article describes in detail the current
> Republican strategy to consolidate power
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/13/opinion/13KRUG.html
Ah, the NY Times, whose editorship has just resigned after basically
admitting that their integrity is less than that of Matt Drudge.
>
> Before anyone discounts the source as some radical left-wing
> ideologue, I would challenge him/her to say what from the above
> article is untrue. If anything, Krugman understates his case by
> saying:
>
> "
I believe he said more than that.
But where to begin as to what is untrue?
1) Mr. Delay is not the President. He does not set the Republican
party nor the country's agenda. While he is in a powerful position,
there are plenty of other Republicans he'd have to convince first.
2) The tax credit for poor kids is another welfare package proposed by
the liberals. This dog won't hunt, it ain't going nowhere. It's spent
it's course.
3) More powerful than Gingrich ever was? Hardly. Gingrich rode in
with the big Republican majority and the Contract with America, and
actually changed a lot of things. Delay doesn't have much under his
belt yet. Most of the credit for things getting through is going to
"W".
4) Westar Energy. Is there any doubt we could find similar things up
and down the aisle? People who make campaign contributions get things
done. That's politics. Always been that way, and always will.
"Punishes lobbying firms that try to maintain good relations with both
parties" which translates to playing both sides of the fence so whoever
wins has some graft money. He's complaining that the Democrats can't
raise funds, basically. Maybe they need a better message than "Bush
sucks."
5) Redistricting. Another political move that's gone on for hundreds
of years. Democrats have done it in my home state. Don't like it?
Take 'em to court. That's what we've done.
All in all, a non-article which says, in effect, if we do nothing, then
Republicans will stay in office and implement their agenda. No
kidding!
So instead of whining about how good the Republicans are in politics
maybe the Democrats might come out with a new idea once in a while?
-Owen
Ramon Khalona
> In article <98061e3f.03061...@posting.google.com>, Ramon
> Khalona <rkha...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Said average citizen better wake up and do something to prevent it
> > from happening. The following article describes in detail the current
> > Republican strategy to consolidate power
> >
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/13/opinion/13KRUG.html
>
> Ah, the NY Times, whose editorship has just resigned after basically
> admitting that their integrity is less than that of Matt Drudge.
You are judging the whole by the behavior of one or two bad apples.
Hardly objective Mr. Harnett. Perhaps the kind of objectivity where
"Fair and Balanced" comes from.
>
>
> But where to begin as to what is untrue?
>
> 1) Mr. Delay is not the President. He does not set the Republican
> party nor the country's agenda. While he is in a powerful position,
> there are plenty of other Republicans he'd have to convince first.
He executes the agenda in the House, and that's the point.
>
> 2) The tax credit for poor kids is another welfare package proposed by
> the liberals. This dog won't hunt, it ain't going nowhere. It's spent
> it's course.
That isn't the point either. The Republicans are using this issue to
justify additional tax cuts at the upper end. That's the agenda.
>
> 3) More powerful than Gingrich ever was? Hardly. Gingrich rode in
> with the big Republican majority and the Contract with America, and
> actually changed a lot of things. Delay doesn't have much under his
> belt yet. Most of the credit for things getting through is going to
> "W".
Perhaps you mean W's advisors? In any case, the changes that De Lay
would like to see make Gingrich look like a centrist. Hardly what the
average citizen stands for if he/she would really know what it's all
about.
>
> 4) Westar Energy. Is there any doubt we could find similar things up
> and down the aisle? People who make campaign contributions get things
> done. That's politics. Always been that way, and always will.
> "Punishes lobbying firms that try to maintain good relations with both
> parties" which translates to playing both sides of the fence so whoever
> wins has some graft money. He's complaining that the Democrats can't
> raise funds, basically. Maybe they need a better message than "Bush
> sucks."
The key issue here is this:
"Consider the case of Westar Energy, whose chief executive was
indicted for fraud. The subsequent investigation turned up e-mail in
which executives described being solicited by Republican politicians
for donations to groups linked to Mr. DeLay, in return for a
legislative "seat at the table." The provision Westar wanted was duly
inserted into an energy bill."
These are the same kind of people who met with President Cheney to
influence the government's energy policy. We still don't know who
else he met with and what they talked about, thanks to the friendly
courts who put them up there in the first place. This is the team
that promised to do something about the accounting scandals. Can they
be trusted?
>
> 5) Redistricting. Another political move that's gone on for hundreds
> of years. Democrats have done it in my home state. Don't like it?
> Take 'em to court. That's what we've done.
Redistricting has been going on for a long time, but Mr. De Lay wanted
to do it more often to enhance his party's power. Thankfully, it
backfired.
>
> All in all, a non-article which says, in effect, if we do nothing, then
> Republicans will stay in office and implement their agenda. No
> kidding!
Can you define non-article? Perhaps the conclusion is as stated, from
your point of view. From mine, it's an expose of what the Republicans
want to do and how they want to do it. If people want it, fine; if
not, the power is in their votes to stop it.
RK
Thomas Muething
>>
> Do French peacekeepers taste better with red wine or white?
They supposedly taste a lot better than American trailer trash. For
starters, they go with Beaujolais, not Moonshine.
Samir Golescu
Owen:
> > Ah, the NY Times, whose editorship has just resigned after basically
> > admitting that their integrity is less than that of Matt Drudge.
Ramon:
> You are judging the whole by the behavior of one or two bad apples.
> Hardly objective Mr. Harnett. Perhaps the kind of objectivity where
> "Fair and Balanced" comes from.
Owen:
> > Mr. Delay is not the President. He does not set the Republican
> > party nor the country's agenda. While he is in a powerful position,
> > there are plenty of other Republicans he'd have to convince first.
Ramon:
> He executes the agenda in the House, and that's the point.
Now, wait a minute Ramon, do you see any internal contradiction in the
above?
regards,
SG
Marc Perman
"Ramon Khalona" <rkha...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:98061e3f.03061...@posting.google.com...
More objectionable to me than any of the above is the plan to have
Bush lay the cornerstone for the beginning of construction at the
World Trade Center site during the Republican convention next
September, thereby further politicizing a terrible tragedy for his
own gain. To accomplish this will require a rushed environmental
permit process, which would of course be completely in character
for Bush.
If this travesty actually goes forward, I suspect New York 2004
may rival Chicago in 1968.
Marc Perman
Owen Hartnett
wedlowski <tor...@excite.com> wrote:
French clowns taste funny.
-Owen
Owen Hartnett
> Owen Hartnett <ow...@xids.xnet> wrote in message
> news:<130620030141386372%ow...@xids.xnet>...
> > In article <98061e3f.03061...@posting.google.com>, Ramon
> > Khalona <rkha...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Said average citizen better wake up and do something to prevent it
> > > from happening. The following article describes in detail the current
> > > Republican strategy to consolidate power
> > >
> > > http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/13/opinion/13KRUG.html
> >
> > Ah, the NY Times, whose editorship has just resigned after basically
> > admitting that their integrity is less than that of Matt Drudge.
>
> You are judging the whole by the behavior of one or two bad apples.
> Hardly objective Mr. Harnett. Perhaps the kind of objectivity where
> "Fair and Balanced" comes from.
The fish rots from the top. It isn't "one or two bad apples," it's the
top editorial staff, which is responsible for the output of the whole
paper. Some very large heads rolled there. Like the FBI, I don't
think the NYT has its head in order yet.
> >
> >
> > But where to begin as to what is untrue?
> >
> > 1) Mr. Delay is not the President. He does not set the Republican
> > party nor the country's agenda. While he is in a powerful position,
> > there are plenty of other Republicans he'd have to convince first.
>
> He executes the agenda in the House, and that's the point.
You described this impending doom as "the current Republican strategy."
The House is tempered by the Senate, which is tempered by the
President.
>
> >
> > 2) The tax credit for poor kids is another welfare package proposed by
> > the liberals. This dog won't hunt, it ain't going nowhere. It's spent
> > it's course.
>
> That isn't the point either. The Republicans are using this issue to
> justify additional tax cuts at the upper end. That's the agenda.
The Republicans aren't bringing up this issue, the Democrats are, and
they're bringing it up to stick a knife in the Republicans, except it's
a rubber knife.
> >
> > 3) More powerful than Gingrich ever was? Hardly. Gingrich rode in
> > with the big Republican majority and the Contract with America, and
> > actually changed a lot of things. Delay doesn't have much under his
> > belt yet. Most of the credit for things getting through is going to
> > "W".
>
> Perhaps you mean W's advisors?
No, W himself. He's the one calling the shots. If you doubt this, I
recommend the article "Inside the mind of George Bush" in a recent
Atlantic Monthly (which is for the most part a liberal magazine), it's
actually a good look at the inner workings of the White House policy.
Or, you can continue to join those who underestimate George Bush,
blissful in your thoughts that he's incapable of making his own
decisions, or of rational intelligent thought, but it's that
underestimation which has made him so successful, and so hard for
liberals to challenge. (I shouldn't be spilling the beans to tell you
how to beat him in the election :-) )
Congress isn't going to listen to some advisor, or even the Vice
President. If it's an important bill to go through, the President
himself has to make the calls and push it through.
> In any case, the changes that De Lay
> would like to see make Gingrich look like a centrist. Hardly what the
> average citizen stands for if he/she would really know what it's all
> about.
You forget how reviled Gingrich is/was. Oh, and I think you take this
"average citizen" much too much for granted.
> The key issue here is this:
>
> "Consider the case of Westar Energy, whose chief executive was
> indicted for fraud. The subsequent investigation turned up e-mail in
> which executives described being solicited by Republican politicians
> for donations to groups linked to Mr. DeLay, in return for a
> legislative "seat at the table." The provision Westar wanted was duly
> inserted into an energy bill."
Kind of like when Bill Clinton used to play golf with Enron's CEO,
Kenneth Lay? Is that what you're implying?
>
> These are the same kind of people who met with President Cheney to
> influence the government's energy policy. We still don't know who
> else he met with and what they talked about, thanks to the friendly
> courts who put them up there in the first place. This is the team
> that promised to do something about the accounting scandals. Can they
> be trusted?
No one should be "trusted." Why would you want to do a silly thing like
trust them?
> >
> > 5) Redistricting. Another political move that's gone on for hundreds
> > of years. Democrats have done it in my home state. Don't like it?
> > Take 'em to court. That's what we've done.
>
> Redistricting has been going on for a long time, but Mr. De Lay wanted
> to do it more often to enhance his party's power. Thankfully, it
> backfired.
So, it's not the redistricting, it's the excess that annoys you?
> >
> > All in all, a non-article which says, in effect, if we do nothing, then
> > Republicans will stay in office and implement their agenda. No
> > kidding!
>
> Can you define non-article?
One that has little or nothing to really say, or the conclusions are
obvious.
> Perhaps the conclusion is as stated, from
> your point of view. From mine, it's an expose of what the Republicans
> want to do and how they want to do it. If people want it, fine; if
> not, the power is in their votes to stop it.
As it is always.
-Owen
P.S. on a minor point: It's "Hartnett" with a 't' in the middle. I
like my tea break.
-O
Dan Koren
"Owen Hartnett" <ow...@xids.xnet> wrote in message
> > > >>
> > >> Like the Un led peace keeping forces have made a difference in
> > >> Africa, especially in the Congo
> > >
> > >
> > > Of course they did. They added variety to the menu.
> > >
> > Do French peacekeepers taste better with red wine or white?
french taste better on bed of escargots.
> French clowns taste funny.
french not taste good.
belgian taste better.
ask bokasa.
dk
Gerrie Collins
> More objectionable to me than any of the above is the plan to have
> Bush lay the cornerstone for the beginning of construction at the
> World Trade Center site during the Republican convention next
> September, thereby further politicizing a terrible tragedy for his
> own gain. To accomplish this will require a rushed environmental
> permit process, which would of course be completely in character
> for Bush.
Gad, how mean spirited and biased can one get? Besides just
'incidentally' being president when this awful chapter in America
occurred, he has seemingly dedicated the major focus of his presidency
to avenging it. And I for one can find no wrong in that purpose.
> If this travesty actually goes forward, I suspect New York 2004
> may rival Chicago in 1968.
I highly doubt it. Of course, no one knows what may transpire in the
interim, but I still have in my mind's eye that 'scene for the ages'
of Bush grabbing the bullhorn while standing in the smoldering rubble
of the towers, his arm draped around that fireman, saying, "I can hear
you. The whole world hears you. And the people who did this will
soon hear from all of us." Powerful stuff, and completely
unrehearsed. Persuasive campaign imaging (except for those who would
have preferred that we do nothing) because he kept, and is keeping,
his word.
Gerrie C
torcik wedlowski
<tmuethingBUGGE...@t-online.de> wrote:
>torcik wedlowski wrote:
>
>>>
>> Do French peacekeepers taste better with red wine or white?
>
>
>They supposedly taste a lot better than American trailer trash. For
>starters, they go with Beaujolais, not Moonshine.
>
The germans prefer french cooked as long as they are kosher
>
>
torcik wedlowski
<tmuethingBUGGE...@t-online.de> wrote:
>torcik wedlowski wrote:
>
>>>
>> Do French peacekeepers taste better with red wine or white?
>
>
>They supposedly taste a lot better than American trailer trash. For
>starters, they go with Beaujolais, not Moonshine.
>
The germans prefer french cooked as long as they are kosher
>
>
Marc Perman
> "Marc Perman" <mper...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:<QurGa.142960$h42....@twister.nyc.rr.com>...
> > More objectionable to me than any of the above is the plan to
have
> > Bush lay the cornerstone for the beginning of construction at
the
> > World Trade Center site during the Republican convention next
> > September, thereby further politicizing a terrible tragedy for
his
> > own gain. To accomplish this will require a rushed
environmental
> > permit process, which would of course be completely in
character
> > for Bush.
> Gad, how mean spirited and biased can one get? Besides just
> 'incidentally' being president when this awful chapter in
America
> occurred, he has seemingly dedicated the major focus of his
presidency
> to avenging it. And I for one can find no wrong in that
purpose.
How, exactly, does invading Iraq constitute avenging 9/11? To my
mean-spirited mind, Bush has dedicated his presidency to
exploiting the American public's ignorance about who the
terrorists were and WMD toward a goal which seems to have nothing
to do with 9/11.
> > If this travesty actually goes forward, I suspect New York
2004
> > may rival Chicago in 1968.
> I highly doubt it. Of course, no one knows what may transpire
in the
> interim, but I still have in my mind's eye that 'scene for the
ages'
> of Bush grabbing the bullhorn while standing in the smoldering
rubble
> of the towers, his arm draped around that fireman, saying, "I
can hear
> you. The whole world hears you. And the people who did this
will
> soon hear from all of us." Powerful stuff, and completely
> unrehearsed. Persuasive campaign imaging (except for those who
would
> have preferred that we do nothing) because he kept, and is
keeping,
> his word.
The bullhorn moment was, I agree, perhaps the most impressive and
honest moment of Bush's presidency. For some of us who live
within a mile of ground zero, however, a war against a country
that had nothing to do with 9/11, which posed no threat to the US,
and which it now appears was based on bogus "intelligence," does
little to convince that the president is keeping his word.
Marc Perman
Samir Golescu
On Sat, 14 Jun 2003, Owen Hartnett wrote:
> No, W himself. He's the one calling the shots. If you doubt this, I
> recommend the article "Inside the mind of George Bush" in a recent
> Atlantic Monthly (which is for the most part a liberal magazine), it's
> actually a good look at the inner workings of the White House policy.
> Or, you can continue to join those who underestimate George Bush,
> blissful in your thoughts that he's incapable of making his own
> decisions, or of rational intelligent thought, but it's that
> underestimation which has made him so successful, and so hard for
***************
> liberals to challenge.
Moreover, a misunderestimation. . . .
regards,
SG
Samir Golescu
On Sat, 14 Jun 2003, Marc Perman wrote:
> To my mean-spirited mind, Bush has dedicated his presidency to
> exploiting the American public's ignorance about who the
> terrorists were and WMD toward a goal which seems to have nothing
> to do with 9/11.
Not so fast. Now here's an article which strikes me as intelligent,
balanced, putting all the aspects of the current debate in a reasonable
perspective.
The Boys Who Cried Wolfowitz
By BILL KELLER -- NYT
We're now up to Day 87 of the largely fruitless hunt for Iraq's
unconventional weapons. Allegations keep piling up that the Bush
administration tried to scam the world into war by exaggerating evidence
of the Iraqi threat. One critic has pronounced it "arguably the worst
scandal in American political history." So you might reasonably ask a
supporter of the war, How do you feel about that war now?
Thanks for asking.
One easy answer is that between the excavation of mass graves, which
confirms that we have rid the world of a horror, and President Bush's new
willingness to engage the thankless tangle of Middle East diplomacy, which
raises the hope that Iraq was more than a hit-and-run exercise, the war
seems to have changed some important things for the better. This is true,
but not quite enough.
Another easy answer is that it's not over yet. Just as we have yet to
prove that we can transform a military conquest into a real Mission
Accomplished, we have yet to complete our search of a country that, as
Californians must be very tired of hearing, is the size of California.
This is also true, but likewise inadequate.
I supported the war, with misgivings about the haste, the
America-knows-best attitude and our ability to win the peace. The deciding
factor for me was not the monstrosity of the regime (routing tyrants is a
noble cause, but where do you stop?), nor the opportunity to detoxify the
Middle East (another noble cause, but dubious justification for a war when
hardly anyone else in the world supports you). No, I supported it mainly
because of the convergence of a real threat and a real opportunity.
The threat was a dictator with a proven, insatiable desire for dreadful
weapons that would eventually have made him, or perhaps one of his
sadistic sons, a god in the region. The fact that he gave aid and at least
occasional sanctuary to practitioners of terror added to his menace. And
at the end his brazen defiance made us seem weak and vulnerable, an
impression we can ill afford. The opportunity was a moment of awareness
and political will created by Sept. 11, combined with the legal sanction
reaffirmed by U.N. Resolution 1441. The important thing to me was never
that Saddam Hussein's threat was "imminent" -- although Sept. 11 taught us
that is not such an easy thing to know -- but that the opportunity to do
something about him was finite. In a year or two, we would be distracted
and Iraq would be back in the nuke-building business.
Even if you throw out all the tainted evidence, there was still what
prosecutors call probable cause to believe that Saddam was harboring
frightful weapons, and was bent on acquiring the most frightful weapons
of all. The Clinton administration believed so. Two generations of U.N.
inspectors believed so. It was not a Bush administration fabrication
that Iraq had, and failed to account for, massive quantities of anthrax
and VX nerve gas and other biological and chemical weapons. Saddam was
under an international obligation to say where the poisons went, but
did not.
What the Bush administration did was gild the lily -- disseminating
information that ranged from selective to preposterous. The president
himself gave credence to the claim that Iraq was trying to buy uranium in
Africa, a story that (as Seymour Hersh's investigations leave little
doubt) was based on transparently fraudulent information. Colin Powell in
his February performance at the U.N. insisted that those famous aluminum
tubes Iraq bought were intended for bomb-making, although the technical
experts at the Department of Energy had made an awfully strong case that
the tubes were for conventional rocket launchers. And as James Risen
disclosed in The Times this week, two top Qaeda planners in custody told
American interrogators -- one of them well before the war was set in
motion -- that Osama bin Laden had rejected the idea of working with
Saddam. That inconclusive but potent evidence was kept quiet in the
administration's zeal to establish a meaningful Iraqi connection to the
fanatical war on America.
The motives for the dissembling varied. The hawks hyped the case
(profusely) to prove we were justified in going to war, with or without
allies. Mr. Powell hyped it (modestly) in the hope that the war, which he
knew the president had already decided to wage, would not be a divisive,
unilateral exercise. The president either believed what he wanted to
believe or was given a stacked deck of information, and it's a close call
which of those possibilities is scarier.
Those who say flimflam intelligence drove us to war, though, have got
things backward. It seems much more likely that the decision to make war
drove the intelligence.
The origins of this may be well intentioned. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul
Wolfowitz, the most dogged proponent of war against Iraq, is also a
longtime skeptic of American institutional intelligence-gathering. He has
argued over the years, from within the government and from outside, that
the C.I.A. and its sister agencies often fail to place adequate emphasis
on what they don't know, and that they "mirror-image" -- make assumptions
about what foreign regimes will do based on what we would do.
One tempting solution has been to deputize smart thinkers from outside the
intelligence fraternity -- a Team B --to second-guess the analysis of the
A Team professionals. Mr. Wolfowitz was part of a famous 1976 Team B that
attacked the C.I.A. for underestimating the Soviet threat. These days the
top leadership of the Defense Department is Team B. Mr. Wolfowitz and his
associates have assembled their own trusted analysts to help them
challenge the established intelligence consensus.
Who would argue that the spooks' work should not stand up to rigorous
cross-examination? But in practice, B-Teaming is often less a form of
intellectual discipline than of ideological martial arts.
Here's how it might have worked in the Bush administration:
The A Team (actually, given the number of spy agencies that pool
intelligence on major problems, it's more like the A-through-M team)
prepares its analysis of, let's say, the Iraqi nuclear program. The report
is cautious, equivocal and -- particularly since UN inspectors left Iraq
in 1998 -- based on close calls about defector reports, commercial
transactions and other flimsy evidence.
The B Team comes in with fresh eyes, and fresh assumptions. One
assumption, another Wolfowitz mantra, is that more weight should be given
to the character of the regime -- in Saddam's case, his transcendent evil
and megalomania. While the C.I.A. may say that we have insufficient
evidence to conclude that Saddam has reconstituted his nuclear program,
Team B starts from the premise that it is just the kind of thing Saddam
would do, and it is dangerous to assume he didn't.
Then Team B dips into the raw intelligence and fishes out information that
supports its case, tidbits that the A Team may have rejected as
unreliable. The Pentagon takes this ammo to an interagency review, where
it is used to beat the A Team (the C.I.A. and the Defense Intelligence
Agency) into submission. Maybe the agencies put up a fight, but (1) much
of their own evidence is too soft to defend with great conviction, and (2)
by this time the president has announced his version of the facts, and the
political tide is all running in one direction.
When Team B seems to have the blessing of the boss, it goes from being a
source of useful dissent to being an implement of intimidation. As
formidable a figure as Mr. Powell, who resisted pressure to include the
most arrant nonsense in his U.N. briefing, still ended up arguing a case
he told confidants he did not entirely believe, specifically on the
questions of Iraq's nuclear program and connections with Al Qaeda.
By the time a Team B version of events has been debunked, it has already
served its purpose. That 1976 Team B, by assuming the most dire of Soviet
intentions and overlooking the slow collapse of the Soviet economy, came
up with estimates of Soviet military strength that we later learned to be
ridiculously inflated. But the cold warriors who ran it succeeded in
setting back ditente and helped to elect Ronald Reagan. The 2003 Team B
seems to have convinced most Americans that Saddam had nuclear arms and
was in bed with Osama bin Laden.
But the consequences of crying wolf -- and the belief is widespread among
the dispirited spies of the A Team that the administration did exactly
that -- are grave. Honest, careful intelligence is our single most
important weapon in the global effort against terrorism. It is also
critical to winning the support of allies against nuclear proliferation,
most urgently in North Korea and Iran. Already rather compelling evidence
of Iran's development of nuclear weaponry is being dismissed as just more
smoke from the Bush propaganda machine.
So far, the passion to investigate the integrity of American
intelligence-gathering belongs mostly to the doves, whose motives are
subject to suspicion and who, in any case, do not set the agenda. The
pro-war Democrats are dying to change the subject to the economy. The
Republicans are in no mood to second-guess a victory. Just when we really
need some of that Team B spirit, the hawks have chickened out.
The truth is that the information-gathering machine designed to guide our
leaders in matters of war and peace shows signs of being corrupted. To my
mind, this is a worrisome problem, but not because it invalidates the war
we won. It is a problem because it weakens us for the wars we still face.
Gerrie Collins
> On Sat, 14 Jun 2003, Marc Perman wrote:
>
> > To my mean-spirited mind, Bush has dedicated his presidency to
> > exploiting the American public's ignorance about who the
> > terrorists were and WMD toward a goal which seems to have nothing
> > to do with 9/11.
>
> Not so fast. Now here's an article which strikes me as intelligent,
> balanced, putting all the aspects of the current debate in a reasonable
> perspective.
>
>
> The Boys Who Cried Wolfowitz
> By BILL KELLER -- NYT
[Snipped: a very long but thoroughly engrossing and convincing
commentary]
Thanks Samir. This one *really* "tells it like it is" as I said in
the initial post to this thread.
Gerrie
Gerrie Collins
Naturally. Bush-haters, Rumsfeld-haters, Cheney-haters, Rice-haters,
and maybe even a few Powell-haters will see anything that the
Administration does thru glasses clouded with distrust, equivocation,
and just plain antipathy. Holdovers I guess from the 2000 election.
The Iraq war may not - as yet – have uncovered a *direct* link to
9-11, but that it is a breeding ground for anti-American terrorists
and the command post for one of the most inhumane, evil dictators in
history I think is hardly questioned by even the most ardent doves.
Have you forgotten about Afghanistan? Guantanamo Bay? The holds
placed on known terrorists bank accounts? The Homeland Security
Department (Yes, I know that it was Senator Lieberman who initiated
the idea)? The humanitarian efforts in both Afghanistan and Iraq
(even though these may not be going as smoothly as Bush would like)?
I confess that I'm 'annoyed' that we haven't captured either Bin Laden
or Hussein. But I guess it proves the immense difficulty in the
global vastness of such operations. Not made any easier either by
the principles and laws under which – thankfully – we live.
I do know that when one attempts to destroy a fire ant bed, the
initial signs of success are deceiving. Within a day or so, two or
more ant beds spring up in the vicinity of the original one, but
usually smaller. Destroy those two, and later maybe a few more -
*smaller yet* - may pop up. With persistence, the beds will
disappear.
Gerrie C
A. Brain
>
> > To my mean-spirited mind, Bush has dedicated his presidency to
> > exploiting the American public's ignorance about who the
> > terrorists were and WMD toward a goal which seems to have nothing
> > to do with 9/11.
>
> Not so fast. Now here's an article which strikes me as intelligent,
> balanced, putting all the aspects of the current debate in a
reasonable
> perspective.
>
>
[Bill Keller's op-ed piece snipped]
From the same issue of NYT, front page:
"As U.S. fans out in Iraq, Violence and Death on Rise"
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/14/international/worldspecial/14IRAQ.html
I agree with Keller that the "intelligence community"
needs second-guessing. FDR had his own little
web of free-lancers and probably every president
should have some of the kind of infighting that
Bush has between Powell and Rumsfeld.
BUT, remember that Bush had reliable intelligence
in July and August 2001 that Al Quaeda attacks
were imminent, including hijackings. The airlines
were not warned and the public were not either.
And the administration is not exactly cooperating
with efforts to investigate that intelligence failure.
Worth another look, in case it didn't make it
to your local newspaper:
http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/917942.asp
--
A. Brain
Remove NOSPAM for email.
Marc Perman
Rice-haters,
> and maybe even a few Powell-haters will see anything that the
> Administration does thru glasses clouded with distrust,
equivocation,
> and just plain antipathy. Holdovers I guess from the 2000
election.
to
> 9-11, but that it is a breeding ground for anti-American
terrorists
> and the command post for one of the most inhumane, evil
dictators in
> history I think is hardly questioned by even the most ardent
doves.
I don't question that Iraq is a breeding ground for anti-American
sentiment (and not less so *since* we invaded the country), nor
that Hussein was inhumane and evil, but who are the Iraqi
terrorists?
Marc Perman
Marc Perman
>
> > To my mean-spirited mind, Bush has dedicated his presidency to
> > exploiting the American public's ignorance about who the
> > terrorists were and WMD toward a goal which seems to have
nothing
> > to do with 9/11.
>
> Not so fast. Now here's an article which strikes me as
intelligent,
> balanced, putting all the aspects of the current debate in a
reasonable
> perspective.
>
> The Boys Who Cried Wolfowitz
> By BILL KELLER -- NYT
(fine article snipped)
I agree with Keller, and thus, it seems, with you.
Marc Perman
Samir Golescu
On Sun, 15 Jun 2003, Marc Perman wrote:
> I agree with Keller, and thus, it seems, with you.
And with Ms. Collins, too! This unlikely occurrence asks for a toast --
here's a glass of French Beaujolais to both of you. . .! ( :
regards,
SG
(the wine thing is to be taken literally -- I am not metaphorizing on this
subject!)
Ramon Khalona
So, if many of us agree with Keller's statements that
<<What the Bush administration did was gild the lily — disseminating
information that ranged from selective to preposterous...
...Those who say flimflam intelligence drove us to war, though, have
got things backward. It seems much more likely that the decision to
make war drove the intelligence...
...But the consequences of crying wolf — and the belief is widespread
among the dispirited spies of the A Team that the administration did
exactly that — are grave. Honest, careful intelligence is our single
most important weapon in the global effort against terrorism...,>>
the logical conclusion would be that the American public (just as the
British public now feels, and much of the rest of the world felt
before the war started), was duped into going to war. For those
still skeptical about this, take notice of the following excerpt from
Time Magazine (hardly a liberal rag), March 31 2003 issue:
<<
"F___ SADDAM. WE'RE TAKING HIM OUT."
Those were the words of President George W. Bush, who had poked his
head into the office of National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice.
It was MARCH 2002, and Rice was meeting with three U.S. Senators,
discussing how to deal with Iraq through the United Nations, or
perhaps in a coalition with America's Middle East allies. Bush wasn't
interested. He waved his hand dismissively, recalls a participant,
and neatly summed up his Iraq policy in that short phrase. The
Senators laughed uncomfortably; Rice flashed a knowing smile. The
President left the room.
....
>>
"First Stop, Iraq.
How did the U.S. end up taking on Saddam? The inside story of how
Iraq jumped to the top of Bush's agenda - and why the outcome there
may foreshadow a different world order."
by Michael Elliott and James Carney
Time Magazine, p. 172, March 31 2003 issue.
See
http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/from_covers/0,10987,1101030331-435968,00.html
for complete article (you may have to register, as I am quoting from a
hard copy).
Now, the topic here reads "Who Cares?" But even those who don't care
whether the country was lied to, they should care whether the METHOD
that was used will make us less safe in the future.
I will say one last thing on this topic: I have no doubt that if a
Democratic president had done this, the Republicans would be
initiating impeachment proceedings by now.
Ramon Khalona
John Wilson
wrote:
>
>Now, the topic here reads "Who Cares?" But even those who don't care
>whether the country was lied to, they should care whether the METHOD
>that was used will make us less safe in the future.
>
>I will say one last thing on this topic: I have no doubt that if a
>Democratic president had done this, the Republicans would be
>initiating impeachment proceedings by now.
>
>Ramon Khalona
The thing I just can not get past is the fact that George W Bush can
lie to the country and take it to war and kill a whole bunch of people
and that lie is OK. While if you lie about sex it's a high crime and
misdemeanor and an impeachable offense.
A lie, is a lie, is a lie. The Republicans have established the
precedences of what the proper remedy is for a President that lies.
Why don't they get on with the impeachment procedure?
John
Phil Caron
news:a39a103.03061...@posting.google.com...
> "Marc Perman" <mper...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
>
> > How, exactly, does invading Iraq constitute avenging 9/11? To my
> > mean-spirited mind, Bush has dedicated his presidency to
> > exploiting the American public's ignorance about who the
> > terrorists were and WMD toward a goal which seems to have nothing
> > to do with 9/11.
>
> Naturally. Bush-haters, Rumsfeld-haters, Cheney-haters, Rice-haters,
> and maybe even a few Powell-haters will see anything that the
> Administration does thru glasses clouded with distrust, equivocation,
> and just plain antipathy. Holdovers I guess from the 2000 election.
I voted for Bush in 2000. I don't hate him, but I hate being lied to. Lies
do, yes, cloud my glasses with distrust, equivocation, and antipathy.
> The Iraq war may not - as yet - have uncovered a *direct* link to
> 9-11, but that it is a breeding ground for anti-American terrorists
> and the command post for one of the most inhumane, evil dictators in
> history I think is hardly questioned by even the most ardent doves.
Then war should have been pursued openly on those bases alone! Could the
war have happened without the wmd reports? I don't know. I do know that
lying to start a war, in my name among many others, would pretty much make
it to the top of my list of crimes.
> I do know that when one attempts to destroy a fire ant bed, the
> initial signs of success are deceiving. Within a day or so, two or
> more ant beds spring up in the vicinity of the original one, but
> usually smaller. Destroy those two, and later maybe a few more -
> *smaller yet* - may pop up. With persistence, the beds will
> disappear.
>
Agreed. But peace can only rest on truth. If they don't now find WMD that
before were so obvious (to unnamed sources), then my vote will change. In
great part from fear.
- Phil Caron
Samir Golescu
On 15 Jun 2003, Ramon Khalona wrote:
> ...Those who say flimflam intelligence drove us to war, though, have
> got things backward. It seems much more likely that the decision to
> make war drove the intelligence...
Do we know that yet for a fact? Why the big rush in "deciding" that? Just
because when one dislikes "W" every information is good enough? Why should
the use of one or two pieces of shabby evidence, within a process of
information exchange in which we don't know as yet who fooled who, be used
to dismiss an otherwise compelling case for "regime change"?
> Now, the topic here reads "Who Cares?" But even those who don't care
> whether the country was lied to, they should care whether the METHOD
> that was used will make us less safe in the future.
The reason we (or most of us, even the "pro-war" ones) agreed with that
NYT piece was that IF it were to be demonstrated that the administration
lied (as in purposedly disseminating blatant untruths), we do care indeed.
Nobody, American or otherwise, likes to be taken for a fool. It seems to
me though there is an exaggerated rush in pinning this one on GWB
personally without knowing enough of the facts.
regards,
SG
Samir Golescu
On Mon, 16 Jun 2003, Phil Caron wrote:
> > The Iraq war may not - as yet - have uncovered a *direct* link to
> > 9-11, but that it is a breeding ground for anti-American terrorists
> > and the command post for one of the most inhumane, evil dictators in
> > history I think is hardly questioned by even the most ardent doves.
>
> Then war should have been pursued openly on those bases alone! Could the
> war have happened without the wmd reports? I don't know. I do know that
> lying to start a war, in my name among many others, would pretty much make
> it to the top of my list of crimes.
>
> > I do know that when one attempts to destroy a fire ant bed, the
> > initial signs of success are deceiving. Within a day or so, two or
> > more ant beds spring up in the vicinity of the original one, but
> > usually smaller. Destroy those two, and later maybe a few more -
> > *smaller yet* - may pop up. With persistence, the beds will
> > disappear.
> >
> Agreed. But peace can only rest on truth. If they don't now find WMD that
> before were so obvious (to unnamed sources), then my vote will change. In
> great part from fear.
Agreed on the "lying" part, once it would be solidly proven, not based on
journalistic and partisan speculation. However, one cannot equate
"not finding the WMD" with the administration having lied (the latter is
one possibility among many). And sentiments of fear should be felt indeed
but for different reasons. (Almost all parties, pro- and anti-war, thought
those weapons did exist -- for God's sake, not CIA or MI5 alone, but
intelligence from other countries, including France and Russia, not to
mention UN resolutions which stipulated that Saddam's bio and chemical
agents were unaccounted for). The weapons, those we know Saddam had and
never produced any proof he destroyed, could still be in Iraq or could be
out of Iraq, in the hands of his friends. It is totally unsustainable
that, were WMD not to be found in the near future in Iraq, that would mean
they never existed and GWB invented them!
regards,
SG
Owen Hartnett
<j...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On 15 Jun 2003 17:54:45 -0700, rkha...@hotmail.com (Ramon Khalona)
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Now, the topic here reads "Who Cares?" But even those who don't care
> >whether the country was lied to, they should care whether the METHOD
> >that was used will make us less safe in the future.
> >
> >I will say one last thing on this topic: I have no doubt that if a
> >Democratic president had done this, the Republicans would be
> >initiating impeachment proceedings by now.
> >
> >Ramon Khalona
>
> The thing I just can not get past is the fact that George W Bush can
> lie to the country and take it to war and kill a whole bunch of people
> and that lie is OK. While if you lie about sex it's a high crime and
> misdemeanor and an impeachable offense.
You forgot the "under oath." That's what transforms a lie like "a
chicken in every pot" to a felony offense.
>
> A lie, is a lie, is a lie. The Republicans have established the
> precedences of what the proper remedy is for a President that lies.
> Why don't they get on with the impeachment procedure?
I suggest you lobby your Congresscritter to bring it on, if you feel
that strongly about it.
-Owen
Henk van Tuijl
"Samir Golescu" <gol...@uiuc.edu> schreef in bericht
news:Pine.GSO.4.31.03061...@ux5.cso.uiuc.edu...
> It is totally unsustainable
> that, were WMD not to be found in the near future in Iraq, that would mean
> they never existed and GWB invented them!
Aha, a Macchiavellian mind ... believing
that the Bushite regime will plant WMD
in Iraq, just to silence the Democrats!
Henk
John Wilson
wrote:
>In article <3eedd256...@news.earthlink.net>, John Wilson
><j...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> On 15 Jun 2003 17:54:45 -0700, rkha...@hotmail.com (Ramon Khalona)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Now, the topic here reads "Who Cares?" But even those who don't care
>> >whether the country was lied to, they should care whether the METHOD
>> >that was used will make us less safe in the future.
>> >
>> >I will say one last thing on this topic: I have no doubt that if a
>> >Democratic president had done this, the Republicans would be
>> >initiating impeachment proceedings by now.
>> >
>> >Ramon Khalona
>>
>> The thing I just can not get past is the fact that George W Bush can
>> lie to the country and take it to war and kill a whole bunch of people
>> and that lie is OK. While if you lie about sex it's a high crime and
>> misdemeanor and an impeachable offense.
>
>You forgot the "under oath." That's what transforms a lie like "a
>chicken in every pot" to a felony offense.
>>
It makes no difference to the people that died whether the lie that
caused the war to occur was under oath or not. A lie is a lie, is a
lie and when it causes mass murder that should be an impeachable
Samir Golescu
On Mon, 16 Jun 2003, Henk van Tuijl wrote:
> > It is totally unsustainable
> > that, were WMD not to be found in the near future in Iraq, that would
> > mean they never existed and GWB invented them!
>
> Aha, a Macchiavellian mind ... believing
> that the Bushite regime will plant WMD
> in Iraq, just to silence the Democrats!
Henk, what happened? Read again my sentence. I reformulate it for you: if
WMD will not be found in Iraq, that will not mean that those WMD
(which pretty much everybody, "peaceniks" and "hawks" alike, and even my
aunt, UN and Bill Clinton, knew existed) will somehow disappear from
public memory.
IF "W" lied deliberately to the American public, this will surface
too. He would probably pay in elections, not because he has done the wrong
thing in Iraq (which most Americans believe he did not), but because (and
IF) he misinformed the Americans deliberately. I haste to add that the use
of an untrustworthy document was not needed, so the hurt feelings of the
baffled pacifists (which have seen their last propaganda hope, the Great
Looting of the Museum, blown off like the silly bubble it was), should
better start look for other illusory vindicative ointments. The alleged
forged documents matter, used in convincing the American audiences of the
necessity of the war, *may* become, if pursued, a serious matter to be
settled between the American leadership and the American people. A matter,
however, unrelated in any way to "finding WMD" or not. (As you and other
people already say, if the Americans find those WMD, they will be accused
of forgery anyway.)
The US were entitled to go into Iraq at a time of their choosing long
before the resolution 1441. Saddam has offered innumerable casus belli
*before* September 2001. The attempt to assassinate an American President
was plentily enough, period. There have been others, some of them detailed
in UN resolutions. However, the US went as far as asking for one more
resolution.
Here's UN's resolution 1441 from Nov 8, 2002. Nothing more was needed to
motivate the Anglo-American action. [Note, among other relevant elements
of the resolution, the reminder <<recalling that its resolution 678 (1990)
authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and
implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990>>. Iraq was never off
the hook legally. Saddam was beaten after a war of aggression and there
were never peace treaties signed between US or the international community
and Iraq.
The 1991 cease-fire was meant to give Iraq a peaceful chance to comply
with the old and new UN resolutions. Iraq didn't. The US were perfectly
entitled to ensure they were enforced by invading Iraq long before 2003
and even long before 2001. The US have shown in the critical 2002-2003
period, if anything, an almost blissfully bovine patience in trying to
build up other and yet other forms and expressions of international
support they didn't really need, militarily, legally or morally. (They
probably needed them, diplomatically but they were ready to wait and to
sacrifice to much for phony friends and hypocritical emissaries of
"peace".)
I seriously doubt he has, but even if "W" might have used on purpose a bad
document -- an act for which he might lose the confidence of part of his
electorate and suffer in elections -- that will change absolutely
nothing in what regards the roots and justifications of the Iraqi
operation itself.
regards,
SG
__________________
Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its
resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990,
686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5
April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991,
986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all
the relevant statements of its President,
Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its
intention to implement it fully,
Recognizing the threat Iraq's non-compliance with Council resolutions and
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses
to international peace and security,
Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use
all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2
August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660
(1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,
Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on
Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of
restoring international peace and security in the area,
Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final,
and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all
aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and
ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty
kilometers, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and
production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear
programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to
nuclear-weapons-usable material,
Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate,
unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United
Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM
and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and
ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,
Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international
monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant
resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in
spite of the Council's repeated demands that Iraq provide immediate,
unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations Monitoring,
Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), established in
resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM, and the
IAEA; and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region
and the suffering of the Iraqi people,
Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its
commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism,
pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian
population and to provide access by international humanitarian
organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to
resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate
in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained
by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,
Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a
ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that
resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,
Determined to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without
conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687
(1991) and other relevant resolutions and recalling that the resolutions
of the Council constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance
etc. etc. etc.
__________________
Owen Hartnett
<j...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> It makes no difference to the people that died whether the lie that
> caused the war to occur was under oath or not.
It makes a difference in law, so that the survivors of such can
determine whether a crime took place or not, according to the laws as
written.
> A lie is a lie, is a
> lie and when it causes mass murder that should be an impeachable
> offense.
"Should be" is the operable words here. Of course, it is not an
impeachable offense, nor is lying in and of itself, even a crime. As
far as lies that "cause mass murder," W, should he be found guilty of
this non-crime, has plenty of company, from both parties. From Herbert
Hoover, whose slogan "A chicken in every pot and a Car in every garage"
lied to people about the upcoming depression and its resultant horrors
to the farce of lend-lease of FDR, who lied about his real arrangement
with Great Britain in sending them ships, which led us much closer to
entering WWII.
-Owen
Owen Hartnett
<ow...@xids.xnet> wrote:
> "Should be" is the operable words here.
Oops! Should be: "Should be" are the operable words here.
-Owen
Raymond Hall
news:3eedd256...@news.earthlink.net...
Words that should be cast in stone, and indicates the proper perspective,
and how ludicrous the present administration's actions were.
The French are not blameless either when it comes to dirty deals, but at
least they would pass off a sex scandal, and the triviality of lies in such
a context, with a chuckle, and not blow it up out of all proportion. Scoose
the reference to blow <g>
Regards,
# http://www.users.bigpond.com/hallraylily/index.html
See You Tamara (Ozzy Osbourne)
Ray, Taree, NSW
Marc Perman
>
> The reason we (or most of us, even the "pro-war" ones) agreed
with that
> NYT piece was that IF it were to be demonstrated that the
administration
> lied (as in purposedly disseminating blatant untruths), we do
care indeed.
> Nobody, American or otherwise, likes to be taken for a fool. It
seems to
> me though there is an exaggerated rush in pinning this one on
GWB
> personally without knowing enough of the facts.
Substitute "Saddam Hussein" for "GWB" in your last sentence and
you've stated my position succinctly.
Marc Perman
Samir Golescu
Mr. Perman:
[answering]
<<The reason we (or most of us, even the "pro-war" ones) agreed with that
NYT piece was that IF it were to be demonstrated that the administration
lied (as in purposedly disseminating blatant untruths), we do care indeed.
Nobody, American or otherwise, likes to be taken for a fool. It seems to
me though there is an exaggerated rush in pinning this one on GWB
personally without knowing enough of the facts.>>
> Substitute "Saddam Hussein" for "GWB" in your last sentence and
> you've stated my position succinctly.
Yes, we all know poor Saddam was a slandered victim -- too bad we can't
find him and put him back where he belongs. . .
The question -- speaking in illegitimate and badly-argued pinning-on-Bush
-- is: who said the following?
"I voted for the Iraqi resolution, and I did it in large measure based on
the intelligence that I was privy to". . .
"Now, I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are
not in doubt". . .
"President Clinton, with the British and others, ordered an intensive
four-day air assault, Operation Desert Fox, on known and suspected weapons
of mass destruction sites and other military targets.". . .
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports
[i.e., including reports accessible before the Bush administration came
into power] show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical
and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his
nuclear program.". . .
"It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will
continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical
warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.". . .
"There's a very clear history and intention of not only building
stockpiles and adding to what they already have of biological and chemical
weaponry, but attempting to obtain nuclear capacity.". . .
Was it Donald Rumsfeld? Was it Perle, or Wolfowitz, the so-called
"neo-cons" (the latest thin euphemism for "the Jewish conspiracy")? No,
unfortunately. It was Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY).
You see, this really is an issue in which partisanship and attempts to get
some politicianist advantages on thorny technicalities may backfire on the
electoral chances of the initiators themselves. . .
regards,
SG
John Wilson
wrote:
>In article <mb6sevci06n3ta78b...@4ax.com>, John Wilson
FDR did not lie to the American people to take the country into WWII.
But that is really beside the point. An impeachable offense is pretty
much what the House of Representatives decides it is. High Crimes and
Misdemeanors being a very nonspecific phrase. However, mass murder
should certainly quality to rid the country of The Shrub.
John
Henk van Tuijl
"Samir Golescu" <gol...@uiuc.edu> schreef in bericht
news:Pine.GSO.4.31.03061...@ux5.cso.uiuc.edu...
>
>
> > > It is totally unsustainable
> > > that, were WMD not to be found in the near future in Iraq, that would
> > > mean they never existed and GWB invented them!
> >
> > Aha, a Macchiavellian mind ... believing
> > that the Bushite regime will plant WMD
> > in Iraq, just to silence the Democrats!
>
> Henk, what happened? Read again my sentence. I reformulate it for you: if
> WMD will not be found in Iraq, that will not mean that those WMD
> (which pretty much everybody, "peaceniks" and "hawks" alike, and even my
> aunt, UN and Bill Clinton, knew existed) will somehow disappear from
> public memory.
Samir,
The only way to prove the existence of WMD
in Iraq is to find them.
However, if I understand you correctly, it
is not necessary to prove the existence of
WMD in Iraq, it is enough that the public
remembers their existence.
This is transcendental Macchiavellism ...
> (As you and other
> people already say, if the Americans find those WMD, they will be accused
> of forgery anyway.)
IMHO the Bushite regime will seem less
untrustworthy when it does not find WMD
- or keeps silent about it when it does.
> The US were entitled to go into Iraq at a time of their choosing long
> before the resolution 1441. Saddam has offered innumerable casus belli
> *before* September 2001. The attempt to assassinate an American President
> was plentily enough, period. There have been others, some of them detailed
> in UN resolutions. However, the US went as far as asking for one more
> resolution.
Whether the invasion itself was
justified? The "the Hague Invasion
Act" shows that the Bushite regime
itself does not really believe in
the legitimacy of its acts.
Besides, it was clear from the start
that WMD were merely an excuse to
invade Iraq. No Bushite has ever
made a secret of this - and I cannot
understand the uproar in the US
after the Wolfowitz' interview.
BTW, are you too one of those who
believe that the interview was part
of a plan by the Bushite regime to
get Tony Blair into serious problems,
not only in Europe but also at home
- in order to get him out of the
way in Iraq?
Henk
Alain Dagher
> "Samir Golescu" <gol...@uiuc.edu> schreef in bericht
> news:Pine.GSO.4.31.03061...@ux5.cso.uiuc.edu...
>
>>On Mon, 16 Jun 2003, Henk van Tuijl wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>It is totally unsustainable
>>>>that, were WMD not to be found in the near future in Iraq, that would
>>>>mean they never existed and GWB invented them!
>>>
>>>Aha, a Macchiavellian mind ... believing
>>>that the Bushite regime will plant WMD
>>>in Iraq, just to silence the Democrats!
>>
>>Henk, what happened? Read again my sentence. I reformulate it for you: if
>>WMD will not be found in Iraq, that will not mean that those WMD
>>(which pretty much everybody, "peaceniks" and "hawks" alike, and even my
>>aunt, UN and Bill Clinton, knew existed) will somehow disappear from
>>public memory.
>
>
> Samir,
>
> The only way to prove the existence of WMD
> in Iraq is to find them.
>
> However, if I understand you correctly, it
> is not necessary to prove the existence of
> WMD in Iraq, it is enough that the public
> remembers their existence.
>
> This is transcendental Macchiavellism ...
>
>
Samir, Owen, Gerrie, et al. you're not alone:
Owen Hartnett
<j...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >"Should be" is the operable words here. Of course, it is not an
> >impeachable offense, nor is lying in and of itself, even a crime. As
> >far as lies that "cause mass murder," W, should he be found guilty of
> >this non-crime, has plenty of company, from both parties. From Herbert
> >Hoover, whose slogan "A chicken in every pot and a Car in every garage"
> >lied to people about the upcoming depression and its resultant horrors
> >to the farce of lend-lease of FDR, who lied about his real arrangement
> >with Great Britain in sending them ships, which led us much closer to
> >entering WWII.
> >
> FDR did not lie to the American people to take the country into WWII.
Lend-lease was neither a loan nor a lease.
> But that is really beside the point. An impeachable offense is pretty
> much what the House of Representatives decides it is. High Crimes and
> Misdemeanors being a very nonspecific phrase. However, mass murder
> should certainly quality to rid the country of The Shrub.
I'm sure you meant qualify. But, as you say, it's whatever the House
decides it is.
-Owen
Samir Golescu
On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, Alain Dagher wrote:
> Samir, Owen, Gerrie, et al. you're not alone:
>
> http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/front/6085261.htm
Well, I have good new for you. You are not alone either! ( :
regards,
SG
Samir Golescu
Henk:
> > > > It is totally unsustainable
> > > > that, were WMD not to be found in the near future in Iraq, that would
> > > > mean they never existed and GWB invented them!
> > >
> > > Aha, a Macchiavellian mind ... believing
> > > that the Bushite regime will plant WMD
> > > in Iraq, just to silence the Democrats!
> >
> > Henk, what happened? Read again my sentence. I reformulate it for you: if
> > WMD will not be found in Iraq, that will not mean that those WMD
> > (which pretty much everybody, "peaceniks" and "hawks" alike, and even my
> > aunt, UN and Bill Clinton, knew existed) will somehow disappear from
> > public memory.
>
> The only way to prove the existence of WMD
> in Iraq is to find them.
As it was shown sufficiently in the resolution you have not mentioned, it
was up to Iraq to prove *to the whole globe, not only to UN*, that they
*destroyed* the weapons they (documentedly) had. Did you actually read
those UN resolutions?
> However, if I understand you correctly, it
> is not necessary to prove the existence of
> WMD in Iraq, it is enough that the public
> remembers their existence.
No, you don't "understand me correctly". Rather willfully distorting the
mountains of data, not at all of American provenience only, about those
weapons *having existed* into "remembering their existence".
> > (As you and other
> > people already say, if the Americans find those WMD, they will be accused
> > of forgery anyway.)
>
> IMHO the Bushite regime will seem less
> untrustworthy when it does not find WMD
> - or keeps silent about it when it does.
Of course. The late Mr Hussein should have been taken at his word, Mr.
Bush not. It is almost deliciously absurd, but there we go.
> > The US were entitled to go into Iraq at a time of their choosing long
> > before the resolution 1441. Saddam has offered innumerable casus belli
> > *before* September 2001. The attempt to assassinate an American President
> > was plentily enough, period. There have been others, some of them detailed
> > in UN resolutions. However, the US went as far as asking for one more
> > resolution.
>
> Whether the invasion itself was justified?
> "the Hague Invasion
> Act" shows that the Bushite regime
> itself does not really believe in
> the legitimacy of its acts.
The so-called "Hague Invasion Act" might only show that Americans who go
in the way of harm and spend hundreds of billions of dollars in order to
keep the civilized world from sinking in complete chaos don't want to act
in a farce in which other countries (which surely haven't seen the Peter
Sellers comedy "The mouse that roared") decide according to their
subjective political agendas the degrees of "culpability" of other
countries' peace-keeping forces. If Netherlands claims the right to
detain, judge and sentence American soldiers according to the
socialist/anti-American agendas of groups of pressure disguised as "human
rights defenders", the US surely can claim the right to protect its
citizens.
> Besides, it was clear from the start
> that WMD were merely an excuse to
> invade Iraq. No Bushite has ever
> made a secret of this - and I cannot
> understand the uproar in the US
> after the Wolfowitz' interview.
The WMD were part of a complex and completely convincing to me case of
taking out the Saddam regime. Fortunately the US administration did just
that. They did the right thing. Take a look at this article. If it won't
change some minds, it might nevertheless confirm that irrational hatred
for "W" can takes precedence in front of any moral and humanistic
consideration. I personally couldn't care less whether US was led by GWB,
Bill Clinton or Ralph Nader, as long as one *real* mass-murderer (and his
regime too) has (have) been outrooted, if not already sent in the Hell
where he belongs.
Deroy Murdock:
<<From Washington to London and beyond, critics of Operation Iraqi Freedom
loudly demand to see Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass murder. Did anthrax,
nerve gas, and perhaps even plutonium imminently threaten Western
security, or did President Bush and England's Tony Blair fabricate such
things to fuel their rout of the Baathist regime?
If Bush and Blair actually were clever enough to concoct sufficient risks
to justify hostilities, they surely would be crafty enough to "discover"
enough botulinum somewhere to vindicate Gulf War II. Not yet having found
these weapons, however, these two either have half a brain each or
honestly still seek the munitions that Hussein hid in Iraq or elsewhere,
or possibly destroyed to avoid embarrassment.
As this search continues, those craving Bush's and Blair's scalps should
recall what Coalition forces *have* discovered in Iraq:
More than 80 mass graves have emerged in recent weeks, the Washington
Post's Sharon Waxman reports. They have contained prisoners, military
deserters, dissident Shiites and, often, children. At Salman Pak, one
grave with 115 bodies in it appears to have been filled in early April,
just before Baghdad was freed. So far, the remains of some 3,100 victims
have been identified, the Defense Department estimates. This figure could
climb far higher.
"More than 250,000 people were detained or murdered by the government of
Saddam Hussein," declares a Human Rights Watch statement, "and almost all
of them have relatives who now want justice, or physical remains, or at
the very least information about what happened to their loved ones."
These Iraqis were given the death penalty, most likely with neither
appeals nor legal counsel. Any of them gladly would have traded places
with convicted cop killer and celebrated American death row denizen, Mumia
Abu-Jamal. Listen: Has the Left ever been this atypically quiet?
Torture, mutilation, and widespread confinement were standard under
Hussein. As Newsweek's April 28 analysis of Iraqi Intelligence Service
documents revealed, the Baathists arrested 70 to 80 suspected Army
deserters in Basra in May 1994. Local doctors were ordered to slice off
these men's ears. An M.D. who refused to was shot. One victim paid a
$10,000 bribe to have only half his ear removed. Even better, it was
severed with painkillers. "It is hard to measure the depth of Saddam's
wickedness or the devastation he wreaked," Newsweek's Melinda Liu, Rod
Norland, and Evan Thomas observed.
"We've found plenty of torture chambers," Bernard Kerik said in the June 1
New York Post. The former NYPD chief is in Baghdad attempting to restore
order. "I can't fathom why every government building here has a jail in
the basement."
Juad Amir Sayed finally emerged from his own cell. Sought by authorities
for loyalty to a Shiite mullah, he deserted the Army at age 24 and hid in
a three-by-five foot tunnel beneath his mother's house. She fed him
through a hole in her floor. He read the Koran, listened to the BBC's
Arabic service, and, one by one, stored his teeth in a matchbox as they
fell out. He surfaced this spring after 21 years underground, looking
60-plus rather than in his mid-forties. He praised his new-found liberty
to London's Daily Telegraph: "I believe that Allah worked through Mr. Bush
to make this happen."
A terrorist camp at Salman Pak housed a passenger jet fuselage that
defectors insist was used to train Islamic extremists to hijack airliners.
Some 120 suspected, al Qaeda-associated, Ansar al-Islam terrorists were
killed at a base in Khurmal, where traces of toxic ricin were discovered.
In an article in the June 30 National Review, Mansoor Ijaz, a terrorism
expert and chairman of New York-based Crescent Investment Management,
chillingly connects the dots between Iraq and international terrorism. He
recalls that Abu Abbas, architect of the 1985 Achille Lauro hijacking
recently was found living in Iraq, as was Khala Khadr al-Salahat, the
alleged designer of the radio-bomb that demolished Pan Am flight 103 over
Lockerbie, Scotland in December 1988, killing all 259 on board and 11 on
the ground.
Ijaz cites an Iraqi intelligence document in which the secret Mukhabarat
invited a senior al Qaeda operative to Baghdad from the Sudan. The
correspondence said: "We may find in this envoy a way to maintain contacts
with bin Laden." The al Qaeda representative indeed visited Baghdad in
March 1998, five months before the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania
exploded, killing 224 people, 12 of them American, and wounding some 5,000
others, many of them Africans and Muslims.
Manhattan federal judge Harold Baer, meanwhile, ordered Hussein and Iraq's
former government to pay $104 million in damages to the families of two
men murdered in the September 11 World Trade Center attacks. "I conclude
that plaintiffs have shown, albeit barely...that Iraq provided material
support to bin Laden and al Qaeda," Baer ruled May 7. He found that expert
testimony by former CIA chief James Woolsey and remarks by Secretary of
State Colin Powell to the United Nations constituted "sufficient basis for
a reasonable jury to draw inferences" of Iraqi guilt.
Attorney James Beasley Jr., who represents the bereaved families of
Timothy Soulas and George Smith, told the New York Daily News: "This is
the first finding, a judicial finding, that says Iraq was involved in
9/11."
On June 4, U.S. soldiers seized a truck near Kirkuk carrying 1,183 gold
ingots. On May 23 and 25, they caught similar gold-laden trucks on
highways heading out of Iraq. In all, they have captured roughly 4,100
gold bars worth $700 million to $1 billion. Add to that the $950 million
in cash found hidden in and around various Baathist residences, and it
becomes clear how the Oil for Food program left average Iraqis hungry.
"This place is disgusting," one U.S. Marine told Newsweek about an Hussein
palace equipped with gold-handled toilet plungers. "All the people we saw
in the south were starving."
Thanks to America's supposedly boorish GIs, some 170,000 artifacts were
reported stolen from Baghdad's National Museum. "In fact," a Pentagon
spokesman notes, "while many pieces numbering in the hundreds, not
thousands, were taken, all but 33 have been recovered." The Treasure of
Nimrud, a 3,000-year-old set of Assyrian jewels feared lost, actually was
in a Central Bank vault. It goes on display July 3.
"We were here to protect people and property," one soldier said of his
April mission. "But in the early days, we had to choose, and we chose
people."
Deep down, those who scream for Iraq's weapons of mass death right now!
probably hope they remain concealed. If they never materialize, these
people will focus on the absence of equipment rather than the presence of
evil, now vanquished, and thus dismiss Iraq's liberation as a worthless
escapade. But if the mustard gas canisters do appear, these detractors
will claim they were planted. Bush and Blair toppled Saddam Hussein, but
opposite these naysayers, they never can win. >>
regards,
SG
John Wilson
wrote:
>In article <mhusevsithjjldumj...@4ax.com>, John Wilson
><j...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>> >
>> >"Should be" is the operable words here. Of course, it is not an
>> >impeachable offense, nor is lying in and of itself, even a crime. As
>> >far as lies that "cause mass murder," W, should he be found guilty of
>> >this non-crime, has plenty of company, from both parties. From Herbert
>> >Hoover, whose slogan "A chicken in every pot and a Car in every garage"
>> >lied to people about the upcoming depression and its resultant horrors
>> >to the farce of lend-lease of FDR, who lied about his real arrangement
>> >with Great Britain in sending them ships, which led us much closer to
>> >entering WWII.
>> >
>> FDR did not lie to the American people to take the country into WWII.
>
>Lend-lease was neither a loan nor a lease.
>
Somewhat true. We did get some leases but nothing that was loaned was
ever returned. However, whether or not FDR told the whole truth
about Lend-lease to the American people lend-lease did not cause this
country to enter WWII. The attack on Pearl Harbor was the cause and
then the USA only declared war on Japan. In fact the USA never
declared war on Germany. It was the other way around.
As interesting as the US entry in WWII is it has nothing to do with
what happen in Iraq and the lies told by The Shrub to the American
people to justify his invasion.
>> But that is really beside the point. An impeachable offense is pretty
>> much what the House of Representatives decides it is. High Crimes and
>> Misdemeanors being a very nonspecific phrase. However, mass murder
>> should certainly quality to rid the country of The Shrub.
>
>I'm sure you meant qualify. But, as you say, it's whatever the House
>decides it is.
>
Of course.
John
Gerrie Collins
> Samir, Owen, Gerrie, et al. you're not alone:
>
> http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/front/6085261.htm
Read and duly noted (though nothing new).
How about this one:
http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock061703.asp
From the National Review
June 17, 2003, 10:50 a.m.
WMD & More
Remember what we have found in Iraq.
By Derek Murdoch
[note the first name (and ethnicity): "Derek", not "Rupert"]
Gerrie C
Marc Perman
"Henk van Tuijl" <hvan...@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:3eeed701$0$49103$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>
> Besides, it was clear from the start
> that WMD were merely an excuse to
> invade Iraq. No Bushite has ever
> made a secret of this - and I cannot
> understand the uproar in the US
> after the Wolfowitz' interview.
What uproar? We're all snoozin' in front of the TV, watching the
Laci Peterson case
on the news.
Marc Perman
Gerrie Collins
Oops! That first name is "Deroy", not "Derek", as Samir lists
correctly in his reference to the same article.
Gerrie C
P.S. Samir, I *think* I found it first. :-)
Marc Perman
> You see, this really is an issue in which partisanship and
attempts to get
> some politicianist advantages on thorny technicalities may
backfire on the
> electoral chances of the initiators themselves. . .
While deliberately mischaracterizing intelligence is not IMO a
"thorny technicality," I actually don't believe that where
candidates stood on the war will affect their electoral chances.
If Americans voters focus on any issue, which is doubtful, they'll
focus on the economy.
Marc Perman
Owen Hartnett
<Pine.GSO.4.31.030617...@ux10.cso.uiuc.edu>, Samir
Golescu <gol...@uiuc.edu> wrote:
> Deroy Murdock:
>
> <<From Washington to London and beyond, critics of Operation Iraqi Freedom
> loudly demand to see Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass murder. Did anthrax,
> nerve gas, and perhaps even plutonium imminently threaten Western
> security, or did President Bush and England's Tony Blair fabricate such
> things to fuel their rout of the Baathist regime?
>
> If Bush and Blair actually were clever enough to concoct sufficient risks
> to justify hostilities, they surely would be crafty enough to "discover"
> enough botulinum somewhere to vindicate Gulf War II. Not yet having found
> these weapons, however, these two either have half a brain each or
> honestly still seek the munitions that Hussein hid in Iraq or elsewhere,
> or possibly destroyed to avoid embarrassment.
>
> As this search continues, those craving Bush's and Blair's scalps should
> recall what Coalition forces *have* discovered in Iraq:
Good article, Samir!
-Owen
Dan Koren
>
> in Iraq is to find them.
>
Or material evidence of their past existence.
Or sufficient first hand testimonies.
The interesting question however is why does
anyone think that any kind of proof if needed.
Remember that the UN resolution(s) placed the
burden of proof squarely on Saddam Hussein. It
was Iraq's obligation to prove it no longer had
prohibited weapons (or weapon programs). It was
never the obligation of the US, UN or any other
countries to prove anything in this matter.
Henk would make a very bad lawyer.
dk
Henk van Tuijl
Samir,
This is anti-revisionist apologetics
of the let-us-count-our-blessings
kind.
In more euphemistic terms, it is a
strategic retreat: the Bushites did
not find what they were looking for
but look what they did find ...
I seriously doubt that the Bushites
were looking for what Mr. Murdock
wants us to believe that they were
looking for - and I am certain that
they would never have come to find
what they really did find.
But I should not be telling you
this - you know it already ...
Henk
Samir Golescu
Henk:
"Anti-revisionist" is a well chosen word. It smacks of revisionism indeed
to pretend Saddam Hussein never had WMD. And there're no apologetics in
the fact that the police went into a suspicious house, could not find
immediately the corpse of the suspected victim (perhaps hidden in another
backyard by the criminal), but found thousands of other skeletons and
stopped the well-known murderer from adding other murders to his known and
proven murderous panoply. Saying that the police didn't have any business
to go in in the first place -- because the murderer moved the initially
looked-for corpse or burned it -- imho shows something is definitely
rotten in one's moral priorities.
regards,
SG
Henk van Tuijl
>
> > Samir,
> >
> > This is anti-revisionist apologetics
> > of the let-us-count-our-blessings
> > kind.
>
> "Anti-revisionist" is a well chosen word.
> It smacks of revisionism indeed
> to pretend Saddam Hussein never had WMD.
You certainly are on the same wavelength as
GWB (no sneer intended), the term
"revisionism" comes from junior himself -
and he said it as if he knew what it meant
...
> And there're no apologetics in
> the fact that the police went into a suspicious house, could not find
> immediately the corpse of the suspected victim (perhaps hidden in another
> backyard by the criminal), but found thousands of other skeletons and
> stopped the well-known murderer from adding other murders to his known and
> proven murderous panoply. Saying that the police didn't have any business
> to go in in the first place -- because the murderer moved the initially
> looked-for corpse or burned it -- imho shows something is definitely
> rotten in one's moral priorities.
Hmm ..., well ..., uhh ...
Do you really believe that the intentions
of the Bushite regime are as noble as
those of these splendid policemen?
Don't answer my question. I know you are
too intelligent to believe this - but
also too loyal to admit it.
With respect,
Henk
Samir Golescu
Henk:
> > > This is anti-revisionist apologetics
> > > of the let-us-count-our-blessings
> > > kind.
> >
> > "Anti-revisionist" is a well chosen word.
> > It smacks of revisionism indeed
> > to pretend Saddam Hussein never had WMD.
>
> You certainly are on the same wavelength as
> GWB (no sneer intended), the term
> "revisionism" comes from junior himself -
> and he said it as if he knew what it meant
> ...
He was imo right to use it, he used it right, so he probably knew what he
meant.
> > And there're no apologetics in
> > the fact that the police went into a suspicious house, could not find
> > immediately the corpse of the suspected victim (perhaps hidden in another
> > backyard by the criminal), but found thousands of other skeletons and
> > stopped the well-known murderer from adding other murders to his known and
> > proven murderous panoply. Saying that the police didn't have any business
> > to go in in the first place -- because the murderer moved the initially
> > looked-for corpse or burned it -- imho shows something is definitely
> > rotten in one's moral priorities.
>
> Hmm ..., well ..., uhh ...
>
> Do you really believe that the intentions of the Bushite regime are as
> noble as those of these splendid policemen?
Yes, I do to the extent I trust politicians (which is pretty narrow to
begin with). Anyway, do you really believe I care whether the policeman
puts "all his heart" and is obsessed with some illusory nobility in his
work? I care to know he's doing his job.
> Don't answer my question. I know you are too intelligent to believe this
> - but also too loyal to admit it.
I am not "loyal" to GWB in any way (as if he could care less). I am not
loyal to the political right or to the political left. I suspect that in
the '50s I would have been more to the left than I am today. Today the
center is often called "right" so no wonder that whatever is central is
perceived as "right" from the "left". (Sir Humphrey Appleby couldn't have
put it better himself.( :) While I have no sympathy for curmudgeonic,
fanaticism-driven aspects of some conservative policies, I can't help but
notice that the new Archie Bunkers of our age, rigidized in their old and
odd programs and not letting reality interfere with them, come from the
left as much as they come from the right. I am loyal to what I am able to
see as right and good. I am hopeful and almost certain that the Democrats
*could* propose a candidate better than GWB, but that didn't happen in
2000 and surely won't happen in 2008, *if* they will sink at the level of
letting a certain ridiculously self-centered, intellectually fluffy and
politically incompetent woman run for the White House.
I also know it is terribly fashionable (and the ultimate proof of
sophistication) to sneer at GWB, but I am not loyal to fashions either.
> With respect,
> Henk
Best regards,
SG
Marc Perman
>
> "Anti-revisionist" is a well chosen word. It smacks of
revisionism indeed
> to pretend Saddam Hussein never had WMD. And there're no
apologetics in
> the fact that the police went into a suspicious house, could not
find
> immediately the corpse of the suspected victim (perhaps hidden
in another
> backyard by the criminal), but found thousands of other
skeletons and
> stopped the well-known murderer from adding other murders to his
known and
> proven murderous panoply. Saying that the police didn't have any
business
> to go in in the first place -- because the murderer moved the
initially
> looked-for corpse or burned it -- imho shows something is
definitely
> rotten in one's moral priorities.
You've set up and knocked down a straw dog here. There are
probably few liberals around who wouldn't agree, myself included,
that in retrospect Iraq is much better off with Hussein gone.
What's terribly wrong with the sequence of events is that our
president apparently deliberately lied to Congress, and to the
American public, about an imminent alleged threat to the US, so
imminent and so horrible that we couldn't leave it to UN
inspectors to handle over a reasonable period of time. A war
waged on false pretenses, no matter what the outcome or what may
be discovered, is illegitimate. To many Americans and to much of
the world, Bush's credibility is now virtually nonexistent. Tony
Blair may lose his job over this, but Bush is probably right in
noting that Americans don't care.
Marc Perman
John Gavin
> "Henk van Tuijl" <hvan...@xs4all.nl> wrote in message news:<3eeed701$0$49103$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl>...
> >
> > The only way to prove the existence of WMD
> > in Iraq is to find them.
> >
>
> Or material evidence of their past existence.
>
> Or sufficient first hand testimonies.
>
> The interesting question however is why does
> anyone think that any kind of proof if needed.
>
over believing they were stopping a maniac with weapons of mass
destruction - because their President told them so.
> Remember that the UN resolution(s) placed the
> burden of proof squarely on Saddam Hussein. It
> was Iraq's obligation to prove it no longer had
> prohibited weapons (or weapon programs). It was
> never the obligation of the US, UN or any other
> countries to prove anything in this matter.
>
It was to obligation of the US to tell it's military and citizens the
truth which appears to be that they aren't sure and have no proof.
Samir Golescu
On Thu, 19 Jun 2003, Marc Perman wrote:
<<"Anti-revisionist" is a well chosen word. It smacks of revisionism
indeed
to pretend Saddam Hussein never had WMD. And there're no apologetics in
the fact that the police went into a suspicious house, could not find
immediately the corpse of the suspected victim (perhaps hidden in another
backyard by the criminal), but found thousands of other skeletons and
stopped the well-known murderer from adding other murders to his known and
proven murderous panoply. Saying that the police didn't have any business
to go in in the first place -- because the murderer moved the initially
looked-for corpse or burned it -- imho shows something is definitely
rotten in one's moral priorities.>>
> You've set up and knocked down a straw dog here.
Really? The "straw dog" here is another one, dear Mr Perman: according to
it, if as much as a molecule of the anti-Saddam case was not kosher, the
whole case falls in shambles. THAT is a "straw dog" indeed.
> There are
> probably few liberals around who wouldn't agree, myself included,
> that in retrospect Iraq is much better off with Hussein gone.
That's a relief.
> What's terribly wrong with the sequence of events is that our
> president apparently deliberately lied to Congress, and to the
> American public,
Well, that "apparently" is a keyword there. Pardon me, but from "liberals"
who think that Bush is guilty in principle for every evil in US and in the
world, their rush to condemn their President for being a liar sounds
somewhat shrill to this reader. Mr. Clinton's name and lie were called in
analogy. I dare think Mr. Clinton's having lied under oath was much
more certain at the moment he'd been impeached -- pardon me for presuming
that Mr. Clinton had a better knowledge of what his "little Bill" was
doing at any given moment than Mr. Bush was able to personally verify the
veracity of every single document used in an extremely broad and complex
case against Iraq. (That being said, I thought the famous impeachment of
Bill Clinton was a sorry show, a stupid luxury, and a partisan dirty
Republican game the US could barely afford, because at a moment of
relative domestic and international tranquility. Staying around Hillary
for life should have been construed as enough of a a punishment for the
Playful Bill.)
> about an imminent alleged threat to the US, so
> imminent and so horrible that we couldn't leave it to UN
> inspectors to handle over a reasonable period of time.
"Give the inspectors time", yes? Well, it looks a bit strange that the
goal in the pursuit of which liberals were happy to give the inspectors
many months, perhaps years, should have been attained now in a couple
of months by Bush.
> A war waged on false pretenses, no matter what the outcome or what may
> be discovered, is illegitimate.
Aren't we inferring a tad much from one or few documents/reasons, out of
many, being possibly ungenuine? On the same lines of thought, if Hitler
were to be accused by Roosevelt (as he possibly was), alongside the many
crimes he was guilty of, of some unsubstantiated ones, the war would have
been "waged on false pretenses" and "illegitimate", no matter the outcome
or the discovery of extermination camps?? Really, people, do you read what
you're writing?
> To many Americans and to much of the world, Bush's credibility is now
> virtually nonexistent.
I will dare say that, at the moment, most of those for whom Bush's
credibility is "virtually nonexistent" are those for whom Bush's
credibility was *already* "virtually nonexistent" in 2000, in September
2001, in October 2002 and in March 2003. Bush's credibility might become
lost in front of other humble people such as I, only when the allegation
that he "deliberately lied" would be supported by more than partisan
hatred, prejudiced and prejudged condemnation, and tabloid speculation.
Unlike some of you gentlemen, provided I would face undoubtful proof of Mr
Bush having lied, I would not stick to my present position out of
"loyalty" (according to Henk) or a prejudged party spectrum inclination
(which I actually don't have). It would be indeed irresponsible for an
American President to knowingly put American credibility at risk by
using known forged documents. However, if the Democrats hope they will win
elections on this issue *regardless* of the truth, well, again, I think
that they might, if anything, lose them on it and that they will have
fully deserved it.
There will be no way in which all the Democrat leaders who, using
like-Bush rhetoric at the convenient moment, tried to capture for
themselves some of the political benefits of the patriotic sentiments,
will be able to detach themselves from the political consequences of the
"lie" gambit. Moreover, if "W" deliberately lied indeed he should suffer
political consequences but if he didn't and he was accused he did,
many Americans might sanction what they will perceive as a dirty game
rather than a pure quest for the moral-political Graal.
regards,
SG
Samir Golescu
On 19 Jun 2003, John Gavin wrote:
> > > The only way to prove the existence of WMD
> > > in Iraq is to find them.
> > >
> >
> > Or material evidence of their past existence.
> >
> > Or sufficient first hand testimonies.
> >
> > The interesting question however is why does
> > anyone think that any kind of proof if needed.
> >
> Because very possibly American soldiers who were killed in Iraq went
> over believing they were stopping a maniac with weapons of mass
> destruction - because their President told them so.
Speaking of revisionist history: so Saddam Hussein was *not* a homicidal
maniac. Weapons of mass destruction never existed.
I can't help but wondering: HAD George W Bush ordered FBI, based on
sensitive intelligence, on Sept. 10 2001, that house (somewhere in US,
with 19 youngsters led by a certain Mohamed Atta discussing peacefully) to
attack the house and take the men dead or alive -- would we have today
requests of "Impeach Bush"? Probably yes.
> > Remember that the UN resolution(s) placed the
> > burden of proof squarely on Saddam Hussein. It
> > was Iraq's obligation to prove it no longer had
> > prohibited weapons (or weapon programs). It was
> > never the obligation of the US, UN or any other
> > countries to prove anything in this matter.
> It was to obligation of the US to tell it's military and citizens the
> truth which appears to be that they aren't sure and have no proof.
All the answers one needs are out there, if one cares to read them.
_________________________________________________
A Plot to Deceive?
By Robert Kagan
Wahington Post -- Sunday, June 8, 2003
There is something surreal about the charges flying that President Bush
lied when he claimed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
Yesterday The Post continued the barrage, reporting that Defense
Intelligence Agency analysts claimed last September merely that Iraq
"probably" possessed "chemical agent in chemical munitions" and "probably"
possessed "bulk chemical stockpiles, primarily containing precursors, but
that also could consist of some mustard agent and VX," a deadly nerve
agent.
This kind of "discrepancy" qualifies as front-page news these days. Why?
Not because the Bush administration may have -- repeat, may have --
exaggerated the extent of knowledge about what Hussein had in his WMD
arsenal. No, the critics' real aim is to prove that, as a New York Times
reporter recently put it, "the failure so far to find weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq may mean that there never were any in the first
place."
The absurdity of this charge is mind-boggling. Yes, neither the CIA nor
the U.N. inspectors have ever known exactly how many weapons Hussein had
or how many he was building. But that Iraq possessed weapons of mass
destruction and the ability to produce more? That has never been in doubt.
Start with this: The Iraqi government in the 1990s admitted to U.N.
weapons inspectors that it had produced 8,500 liters of anthrax and a few
tons of VX. Where are they? U.N. inspectors have been trying to answer
that question for years. Because Hussein refused to come clean, the
logical presumption was that he had hidden them. As my colleague,
nonproliferation expert Joseph Cirincione, put it bluntly in a report last
year: "Iraq has chemical and biological weapons." The only thing not known
was where they were and how far the Iraqi weapons programs had advanced
since the inspectors left in 1998.
Go back and take a look at the report Hans Blix delivered to the U.N.
Security Council on Jan. 27. On the question of Iraq's stocks of anthrax,
Blix reported "no convincing evidence" that they were ever destroyed. But
there was "strong evidence" that Iraq produced more anthrax than it had
admitted "and that at least some of this was retained." Blix also reported
that Iraq possessed 650 kilograms of "bacterial growth media," enough "to
produce . . . 5,000 litres of concentrated anthrax." Cirincione concluded
that "it is likely that Iraq retains stockpiles of anthrax, botulinum
toxin and aflatoxin."
On the question of VX, Blix reported that his inspections team had
information that conflicted with Iraqi accounts. The Iraqis claimed that
they had produced VX only as part of a pilot program but that the quality
was poor and the agent was never "weaponized." But according to Blix, the
inspections team discovered Iraqi documents that showed the quality of the
VX to be better than declared. The team also uncovered "indications that
the agent" had been "weaponized." According to Cirincione's August 2002
report, "it is widely believed that significant quantities of chemical
agents and precursors remain stored in secret depots" and that there were
also "thousands of possible chemical munitions still unaccounted for."
Blix reported there were 6,500 "chemical bombs" that Iraq admitted
producing but whose whereabouts were unknown. Blix's team calculated the
amount of chemical agent in those bombs at 1,000 tons. As Blix reported to
the Security Council, "in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must
assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for."
Today, of course, they and many other known weapons are still unaccounted
for. Does it follow, therefore, that they never existed? Or does it make
more sense to conclude that the weapons were there and that either we'll
find them or we'll find out what happened to them?
The answer depends on how broad and pervasive you like your conspiracies
to be. Because if Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair are lying,
they're not alone. They're part of a vast conspiratorial network of liars
that includes U.N. weapons inspectors and reputable arms control experts
both inside and outside government, both Republicans and Democrats.
Maybe former CIA director John Deutch was lying when he testified before
the Senate Intelligence Committee on Sept. 19, 1996, that "we believe that
[Hussein] retains an undetermined quantity of chemical and biological
agents that he would certainly have the ability to deliver against
adversaries by aircraft or artillery or by Scud missile systems."
Maybe former defense secretary William Cohen was lying in April when he
said, "I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons. . . . I saw
evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from
gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and
then moving those trucks out."
Maybe the German intelligence service was lying when it reported in 2001
that Hussein might be three years away from being able to build three
nuclear weapons and that by 2005 Iraq would have a missile with sufficient
range to reach Europe.
Maybe French President Jacques Chirac was lying when he declared in
February that there were probably weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and
that "we have to find and destroy them."
Maybe Al Gore was lying when he declared last September, based on what he
learned as vice president, that Hussein had "stored secret supplies of
biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Finally, there's former president Bill Clinton. In a February 1998 speech,
Clinton described Iraq's "offensive biological warfare capability, notably
5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of
anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs."
Clinton accurately reported the view of U.N. weapons inspectors "that Iraq
still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force
of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production
program and build many, many more weapons." That was as unequivocal and
unqualified a statement as any made by George W. Bush.
Clinton went on to insist, in words now poignant, that the world had to
address the "kind of threat Iraq poses . . . a rogue state with weapons of
mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists . . .
who travel the world among us unnoticed." I think Bush said that, too.
So if you like a good conspiracy, this one's a doozy. And the best thing
about it is that if all these people are lying, there's only one person
who ever told the truth: Saddam Hussein. And now we can't find him either.
Samir Golescu
Mr. Perman:
> What's terribly wrong with the sequence of events is that our
> president apparently deliberately lied to Congress, and to the
> American public
There are those voices which claim that the President[s] was/were lied to,
if at all, from the Congress. After all George W Bush did not invent this
WMD issue. Neither was he the first or only one to push for a military
solution in solving the Saddam regime matter.
Take Senator Carl Levin (*D*-MI) for instance. Now, in June 2003, tuning
in the opportunistic and hypocritical accusatory rush which seems to
spread among GWB's adversaries, he intones unabashedly the innocent
refrain:
<<While President Bush and other administration officials spoke with
certainty about the imminent threat posed by Iraq's stockpiles of weapons
of mass destruction -- and thus the urgent need to take military action to
disarm Iraq -- there is growing evidence that the intelligence on Iraq's
prohibited weapons was more ambiguous.
Was there a shading of intelligence information to fit a particular
administration policy? Did administration officials exaggerate or
overstate the intelligence information to make a stronger case to the
American public and the world for the need to end United Nations
inspections for weapons of mass destruction and go to war against Iraq?>>
One would rather suspect that there was another Carl Levin to address the
US Senate, in 1998, as such:
<<During the course of [a] meeting [with United Nations Special Commission
Chairman Richard Butler], we covered a host of issues concerning Unscom
inspections relating to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and their means
of delivery . . .
Chairman Butler confirmed that after Unscom became aware, despite earlier
denials, that Iraq had possessed 2,100 gallons of anthrax and 3.9 tons of
VX, Iraq claimed that it had destroyed those substances. He noted that
first of all, that was a violation of the U.N. resolutions, since
destruction of such substances is to be carried out by Unscom, and second,
that Unscom was unable to verify that Iraq had destroyed them.
Chairman Butler made the point that since 1995, Unscom had found
important indicators of weapons of mass destruction programs that Iraq has
sought to conceal and about which they have lied to Unscom. He noted,
moreover, that Unscom has evidence of a connection of significant
biological substances to Iraq's special security organization, thus
demonstrating that Saddam Hussein uses the same apparatus to seek or
manufacture weapons of mass destruction that he uses to keep himself in
power.>>
One would suspect that there was another Carl Levin to sign a 1998 letter
to the (then) President Bill Clinton:
<<We urge you . . . to take necessary actions (including, if
appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraq sites) to respond
effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of
mass destruction programs.>>
or to issue a December 1998 statement including:
<<I support President Clinton's decision to undertake military operations
against Iraq. President Clinton had no alternative because Saddam Hussein
has left the world no alternative.
Through U.N. resolution after U.N. resolution, the world community has
repeatedly demanded that Saddam Hussein destroy his weapons of mass
destruction and the means to deliver them . . .
Since Saddam Hussein refuses to comply with the U.N. resolutions, I
support the use of military force either to compel compliance or to
destroy, to the best of our ability, Iraq's capability to build and
deliver weapons of mass destruction and threaten its neighbors.>>
In fact we are talking about the one and the same Senator Levin (D-MI). If
Bill Clinton were in power and had a Republican senator shown such a
despicable double-facedness, I would characterize it in the same way:
politicianism of the lowest species.
regards,
SG
HPLeft
Here's another article, actually a transcript, exposing the Bush
Administration's big lie strategy, this time from an insider:
MOYERS: In the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq, the Bush
administration's argument for going to war was constant and clear.
BUSH [1/28/03]: Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous
sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction.
CHENEY [8/26/02]: Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now
has weapons of mass destruction.
POWELL [2/5/03]: We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his
weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.
MOYERS: If we did not act, the argument went, Saddam Hussein might do to
America what he had done to his own people.
RUMSFELD [9/19/02]: He has used weapons of mass destruction against his own
people and his neighbors. He has stockpiles of chemical and biological
weapons and he is aggressively pursuing nuclear weapons.
MOYERS: In the Administration's accounts, Saddam Hussein and those alleged
weapons were a "clear and present danger."
CHENEY [1/31/03]: Saddam Hussein's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction
poses a grave danger.
MOYERS: But now, two months after the fall of Baghdad, no weapons of mass
destruction have been found. Even the Commander of the U.S. Marines in Iraq
is frustrated.
CONWAY [5/30/03]: We were simply wrong. It was a surprise to me then, it
remains a surprise to me now, that we have not uncovered weapons. Believe
me, it's not for lack of trying. We've been to virtually every ammunition
supply point between the Kuwait border and Baghdad, but they're simply not
there.
MOYERS: The search isn't over and it is still possible, some experts think
even likely, that chemical and biological weapons will yet be uncovered.
But there's been a noticeable shift in the administration's rhetoric. There
are a lot of qualifiers in their statements. It's not clear exactly what
they are saying they will find.
BUSH [5/6/03]: One thing we know is that he had a weapons program. We also
know that he spent years trying to hide the weapons program.
RUMSFELD [5/27/03]: It is also possible that they decided they would destroy
them.
RICE [6/8/03]: There are sites to visit, we will put together this whole
picture.
MOYERS: How then could the Administration have been so definite in the case
it made for war? Questions are being raised by former intelligence analysts.
Several recently wrote the President to express concern about "the
intelligence cited by you and your chief advisors to justify the war against
Iraq."
Leaked documents are increasing the doubts. Just consider this September
2002 report by the Defense Intelligence Agency. It was unearthed by the
investigative team at U.S. NEWS AND WORLD REPORT.
POUND: At the very moment that the Administration is telling the Congress
with a certainty that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, chemical and
biological agents, his own Defense Intelligence Agency was saying that,
"We're not sure." And, "We don't have any direct information that the Iraqis
have it."
I'll read from the DIA or Defense Intelligence Agency report: "There is no
reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical
weapons or where Iraq has or will establish its chemical warfare agent
production facilities."
THIELMANN: I think the credibility of the intelligence community has taken a
real hit because of the way the information has been used by senior
officials.
MOYERS: Now, in a rising chorus of questions, one voice stands out. It
belongs to Greg Thielmann, a career foreign service officer since 1977. He
has served under three Republican and two Democratic Presidents. An advocate
of a strong national defense, he rose to head the State Department's Office
of Strategic Proliferation and Military Affairs until his retirement last
fall.
THIELMANN: We pretty much had full access to the whole range of classified
information on those subjects.
MOYERS: Thielmann is the first member of America's intelligence community
with active knowledge of the case to come forward and publicly question the
way intelligence was used to make the argument for war.
MOYERS: Would you have had access to the same kind of information that the
C.I.A. and the Defense Intelligence Agency at the Pentagon would have had?
THIELMANN: Yes. We were an all-source intelligence agency. Meaning we took
information from everywhere.
It was our job to be aware of the important pieces of information that were
coming to the U.S. government, no matter what the source was.
MOYERS: After retiring last fall, Thielmann became increasingly concerned by
the way the administration was handling intelligence his office had
analyzed. Like the report of Iraq's attempt to buy uranium for nuclear
weapons, an allegation that made its way into this year's State of the Union
address.
BUSH [1/28/03]: The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein
recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.
MOYERS: That was based on documents purportedly showing that Iraqi officials
had attempted to buy uranium from the African country of Niger, documents
Thielmann says his office had already evaluated a full six months earlier.
THIELMANN: Part of our job was to try to sort out what was credible and what
was not. There were just too many things that didn't seem right in it.
THIELMANN: We found that this was not a credible report. And so advised the
senior leadership at the State Department.
MOYERS: Didn't the documents in those reports turn out to be forgeries?
THIELMANN: Yes.
MOYERS: And yet the President used that report months later in his State of
the Union message.
THIELMANN: It seems that that's the case. And so that, to me, is one of the
most enduring mysteries here. Usually when the President uses intelligence
as the expectation that it's thoroughly scrubbed and.
MOYERS: Scrubbed?
THIELMANN: Well, scrubbed in that... Vetted. You have to make sure that both
you're not revealing sensitive sources and methods. And that you can be
confident that information is solid. That would suggest a certain level of
care behind researching that information which apparently in this case
didn't take place.
MOYERS: What Thielmann says his office had found almost a year ago, has
recently been confirmed by the head of the International Atomic Energy
Agency.
ELBARADEI: Based on thorough analysis, the IAEA has concluded, with the
concurrence of outside experts, that these documents - which formed the
basis for the reports of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and
Niger - are in fact not authentic.
MOYERS: It must have gone through your mind, you say, "Here's a report we've
proven was a fraud, a forgery. And the President of the United States before
millions of people is repeating it as if it were a fact."
THIELMANN: This was dispiriting. I felt anger and it wasn't the first time
in seeing administration figures summarize and explain to the American
people what the intelligence indicated.
MOYERS: The Administration had been wrong; but had they intentionally misled
the public? Consider what National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice said
last weekend on MEET THE PRESS.
RICE [6/8/03]: The president quoted a British paper. We did not know at the
time. No one knew at the time, in our circles. Maybe someone knew down in
the bowels of the agency, but no one in our circles knew that there were
doubts and suspicions that this might be a forgery.
THIELMANN: You can't quite accurately describe this as somewhere in the
bowels of the intelligence bureaucracy. I mean, this was not very many
layers from the Secretary of State. And this was information that I had to
assume Secretary of State brought with him to meetings with other Cabinet
officials and the President.
MOYERS: But she says, "No one in our circles knew that there were doubts and
suspicions that this might be a forgery."
THIELMANN: I find it hard to believe that no one at that level knew that
there were serious questions raised about this information.
RICE [6/8/03]: Of course, it was information that was mistaken. But it was a
relatively small part of the case about nuclear weapons and nuclear
reconstitution.
MOYERS: If it was such a small part of the case would the President use it
in his State of the Union message to the American public and the world?
THIELMANN: If it was only a small piece and not terribly significant then I
don't see why the President would do what's very unusual which is to
declassify sensitive information and announce it to the world. I mean,
that's. you don't do that casually.
MOYERS: And equally puzzling was the story of Iraq's aluminum tubes, another
intelligence report that had become part of the administration's case for
going to war.
MOYERS: September 8th, last fall, front page of THE NEW YORK TIMES. Saddam
Hussein is secretly importing aluminum tubes that could be used to make
enriched uranium. Condoleezza Rice and Vice-President Cheney go on the talk
shows to confirm this story.
RICE [9/8/02]: We do know that he is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon. We
do know that there have been shipments going into Iraq, for instance, of
aluminum tubes that really are only suited to. high-quality aluminum tubes
that are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge
programs.
CHENEY [9/8/02]: And the centrifuge is required to take low-grade uranium
and enhance it into highly enriched uranium, which is what you have to have
in order to build a bomb.
MOYERS: What did you think when you read this story and when you saw them on
the talk circuit defending it?
THIELMANN: Well, this made me both disappointed and angry at the time when
the most knowledgeable experts in the U.S. government believed that this was
not the kind of aluminum that the Iraqis would have been seeking to use in
centrifuges for uranium enrichment.
MOYERS: And just last week, NEWSWEEK reported that the purchase order wasn't
even a secret, it had been posted on the Internet.
THIELMANN: And that would belie the idea that it was a secret acquisition.
MOYERS: So although no hard and reliable evidence had been offered to
support the claim, by the time the President spoke to the nation on the eve
of war, the term "weapons of mass destruction" had come to include nuclear
weapons.
BUSH [3/17/03]: Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves
no doubt that the Iraq Regime continues to possess and conceal some of the
most lethal weapons ever devised.
MOYERS: I remember watching him say that on television. And I thought
nuclear weapons.
THIELMANN: I think that's exactly the reaction that anyone would have
hearing that statement. I mean, the most lethal weapons ever devised ever by
far are nuclear weapons. It's not a good way to inform the public if, in
fact, he was talking about biological and chemical weapons.
MOYERS: In your mind though, you know, the President takes an oath of office
to defend the Constitution, as did you. And if he is weighing this evidence
of whether or not Saddam Hussein has or doesn't have, is or hasn't started
up his nuclear program again, you could understand why the President would
come down on the side of not giving this horrible despot the benefit of the
doubt.
THIELMANN: If one assumed that the threat was that imminent. The
intelligence community as a whole in our considered wording and advice did
not give the President the impression that there was an imminent threat.
THIELMANN: Our judgment was that Iraq had not reconstituted its nuclear
weapons program in the sense that that's generally understood. And that it
was a long way from posing an imminent security threat. It was not on the
verge of acquiring enough fissile material to use in weapons. It was not. it
did not have long range weapons of mass destruction that could pose even a
threat to our allies in Europe or to the United States.
MOYERS: So you concluded that there was no immediate or imminent threat from
Iraq?
THIELMANN: From Iraq. Across the board, that's right.
MOYERS: No imminent nuclear threat.
THIELMANN: No imminent nuclear threat. But in terms of biological and
chemical weapons threats, these were not what I would call an imminent
security threat to the United States.
MOYERS: So, when the Vice President of the United States says, "There's no
doubt Saddam has weapons of mass destruction," he is lumping together
nuclear weapons, which are clearly.
THIELMANN: Yeah.
MOYERS: .weapons of mass destruction. And chemical and biological weapons,
which may not be.
THIELMANN: Well, that's my view of it. And in fact, the one thing that we
should have made clear to the American people was that Saddam had no nuclear
weapons.
MOYERS: So why after twenty-five years in the foreign service has Greg
Thielmann gone public now, especially since the United States has taken out
one of the world's most brutal dictators?
THIELMANN: I would certainly acknowledge that the departure of Saddam is
something to feel very good about. That, to me, is not the issue. To me, the
issue is speaking truthfully to the American people. And I'm not sure that
I'm willing to accept the notion or I'm not that cynical to say that in
order to get the citizens in a democracy to defend themselves, you have to
distort the information provided to them, in order for them to do what needs
to be done. I don't think that's a justified point of view.
Ramon Khalona
> I will dare say that, at the moment, most of those for whom Bush's
> credibility is "virtually nonexistent" are those for whom Bush's
> credibility was *already* "virtually nonexistent" in 2000, in September
> 2001, in October 2002 and in March 2003. Bush's credibility might become
> lost in front of other humble people such as I, only when the allegation
> that he "deliberately lied" would be supported by more than partisan
> hatred, prejudiced and prejudged condemnation, and tabloid speculation.
> Unlike some of you gentlemen, provided I would face undoubtful proof of Mr
> Bush having lied, I would not stick to my present position out of
> "loyalty" (according to Henk) or a prejudged party spectrum inclination
> (which I actually don't have).
Samir, partisan sympathy works both ways. Republican sympathizers
tend to minimize the importance of mistakes made by Republican
administrations just as much as Democrats do when their own are in
power. Those in the know need few signs when something is fishy
though. The following are irrefutable facts:
1. The British and Americans lied when building up the case for war
before the International community. When Colin Powell went before the
U.N. in February this year and cited "the fine report by the U.K." on
Iraq's preparations to deploy WMD, he was referring to a report that
was thoroughly plagiarized from a Ph.D. student's thesis. This has
been acknowledged by the British.
Ask yourself: was this carelessness or was it deliberately done?
If they had incontrovertible proof that Iraq was a threat, why didn't
they use it instead of such bogus information?
2. Bush lied when during his State of the Union address in January he
mentioned that Iraq had purchased material to build nuclear weapons
from Niger. This was later proved to be a forgery and there are
reliable reports from the U.S. intelligence community that this report
had been conisdered *before* Bush mentioned it and had been considered
to be bogus. Again, was the president and his advisers just being
careless or was this done deliberately to influence public opinion?
3. The final decision to go to war was made after U.N. inspectors had
achieved some progress in destroying some 60+ ballistic missiles that
were proven to have range beyond the limits established by U.N.
sanctions. Why stop this effort when progress was being made?
4. WMD have not been found and the probability that they will be found
*in the quantities that were expected* diminishes exponentially with
every day that goes by. Even if we consider the scenario that the
weapons existed, but were smuggled out of Iraq before or during the
war, has the war made us safer?
Think logically before you answer.
RK
Samir Golescu
MattL
> Here's another article, actually a transcript, exposing the Bush
> Administration's big lie strategy, this time from an insider:
I followed as carefully as I could this very long list of quotations and
then dialogue and I found absolutely nothing in each to refute the points
made either by me or by the articles I quoted. If a "big lie" existed
(which I still seriously doubt), the Bush administration has obviously
inherited it from the previous administration and Democrats and
Republicans have been in all of it together, accessories to the fact.
Chatting about one single "Niger" document or one aluminium tube
allegations as distinguishing the "truthful" Democrats from the "lying"
Republicans is pathetic. As pathetic it seems to me that some Democrats
try to hit the Republican administration under belt, knowing perfectly
well how involved they themselves were in the eveniments which built up to
the Iraqi invasion, either through the previous administration, or even
during the Bush administration (through the involvement of members of the
legislative power).
regards,
SG
Samir Golescu
On 19 Jun 2003, Ramon Khalona wrote:
> > I will dare say that, at the moment, most of those for whom Bush's
> > credibility is "virtually nonexistent" are those for whom Bush's
> > credibility was *already* "virtually nonexistent" in 2000, in September
> > 2001, in October 2002 and in March 2003. Bush's credibility might become
> > lost in front of other humble people such as I, only when the allegation
> > that he "deliberately lied" would be supported by more than partisan
> > hatred, prejudiced and prejudged condemnation, and tabloid speculation.
> > Unlike some of you gentlemen, provided I would face undoubtful proof of Mr
> > Bush having lied, I would not stick to my present position out of
> > "loyalty" (according to Henk) or a prejudged party spectrum inclination
> > (which I actually don't have).
> Samir, partisan sympathy works both ways. Republican sympathizers
> tend to minimize the importance of mistakes made by Republican
> administrations just as much as Democrats do when their own are in
> power.
I know. It's part of the game, I presume. I don't think it's any prettier
when Republicans are playing it, and they are rather good at this game,
too, when given the chance.
> Those in the know need few signs when something is fishy though.
Few indeed.
What you actually mean is that when one wants something to be fishy one
selects out of a panoply of myriads of facts four single little ones
and sticks to discussing those four and only those four. When somebody
else brings in the discussion fifty other aspects of the same complex
situation, the secret is to pretend not to have heard them and to keep
repeating those four little facts, with the hope that the rest of the
reality will somehow go away. That might be called "being in the know" in
certain circles, but, respectfully, I don't buy it. The nexus of the
necessity of regime change in the Iraqi affair did *not* stand in the
use of two shabby documents among thousands of fair ones, emanating from
three different American administrations, from UN documents and from
intelligence agencies of many countries.
regards,
SG
Owen Hartnett
Khalona <rkha...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Samir, partisan sympathy works both ways. Republican sympathizers
> tend to minimize the importance of mistakes made by Republican
> administrations just as much as Democrats do when their own are in
> power. Those in the know need few signs when something is fishy
> though. The following are irrefutable facts:
>
> 1. The British and Americans lied when building up the case for war
> before the International community. When Colin Powell went before the
> U.N. in February this year and cited "the fine report by the U.K." on
> Iraq's preparations to deploy WMD, he was referring to a report that
> was thoroughly plagiarized from a Ph.D. student's thesis. This has
> been acknowledged by the British.
> Ask yourself: was this carelessness or was it deliberately done?
We may never know the "truth," but why automatically assume the worst?
What evidence is there that Powell knowingly presented a document that
he knew was false?
> If they had incontrovertible proof that Iraq was a threat, why didn't
> they use it instead of such bogus information?
Maybe because the bogus information was their incontrovertible proof?
>
> 2. Bush lied when during his State of the Union address in January he
> mentioned that Iraq had purchased material to build nuclear weapons
> from Niger. This was later proved to be a forgery and there are
> reliable reports from the U.S. intelligence community that this report
> had been conisdered *before* Bush mentioned it and had been considered
> to be bogus. Again, was the president and his advisers just being
> careless or was this done deliberately to influence public opinion?
Again, is there any evidence to support that Bush or his advisors were
informed of these reliable reports?
>
> 3. The final decision to go to war was made after U.N. inspectors had
> achieved some progress in destroying some 60+ ballistic missiles that
> were proven to have range beyond the limits established by U.N.
> sanctions. Why stop this effort when progress was being made?
The missiles under consideration were considered to be in bad shape,
and probably a token for Iraq to just delay. After six months of
effort, destroying a few obsolete missiles was hardly much progress.
>
> 4. WMD have not been found and the probability that they will be found
> *in the quantities that were expected* diminishes exponentially with
> every day that goes by. Even if we consider the scenario that the
> weapons existed, but were smuggled out of Iraq before or during the
> war, has the war made us safer?
Safer from what? Guys like Iyman Faris? Who was already in the country
and ready to commit acts until he was apparently ratted out by Khalid
Sheikh Mohammed, someone who we would not have captured unless we had
taken military action in Afghanistan.
>
> Think logically before you answer.
Always try to.
-Owen
HPLeft
> I followed as carefully as I could this very long list of quotations and
> then dialogue and I found absolutely nothing in each to refute the points
> made either by me or by the articles I quoted. If a "big lie" existed
> (which I still seriously doubt), the Bush administration has obviously
> inherited it from the previous administration and Democrats and
> Republicans have been in all of it together, accessories to the fact.
> Chatting about one single "Niger" document or one aluminium tube
> allegations as distinguishing the "truthful" Democrats from the "lying"
> Republicans is pathetic. As pathetic it seems to me that some Democrats
> try to hit the Republican administration under belt, knowing perfectly
> well how involved they themselves were in the eveniments which built up to
> the Iraqi invasion, either through the previous administration, or even
> during the Bush administration (through the involvement of members of the
> legislative power).
The Democrats had nothing to do with the Niger nuclear forgery. Nothing.
Nada. It was all Bush, Cheney and company. The Democrats did not represent
this document as credible before Congress and the American people, after
both the CIA and the other government agencies described it as an obvious
forgery. They also did not hype the WMD threat, even if Clinton (within a
few days of his infamous "I did not have sex with that woman"
representation) did express his concern about Hussein's intentions (which I,
for the record, have always considered slick Willie's attempt to "wag the
dog" and preempt the Lewinsky story). What the transcript I quoted
represented was a non-political State Department official expressing his
dismay at how information was manipulated in order to take the nation to
war. He was speaking specifically about this document as well as the claim
that Iraq's non-nuclear WMDs represented a imminent threat to the American
people. You keep evading the key issue by pointing out that the world is
better with Hussein out of power. All things being equal, I happen to agree
with you. I also happen to think that these guys cut too many corners, are
afflicted with ADD (Attention to Diplomacy Deficit), and really do believe
that they know better than everyone else - and hence are above the need to
tell the truth, and allow the American people to decide on a policy in a
vaguely objective fashion. That makes them an enemy to Democracy as I
understand it, and hence the among the most dangerous threats to my nation
that I can imagine.
Matt C
HPLeft
"Owen Hartnett" <ow...@xids.xnet> wrote in message
news:190620031841130639%ow...@xids.xnet...
> Safer from what? Guys like Iyman Faris? Who was already in the country
> and ready to commit acts until he was apparently ratted out by Khalid
> Sheikh Mohammed, someone who we would not have captured unless we had
> taken military action in Afghanistan.
Owen, no one credible has ever contested our right to invade Afghanistan,
and destroy the Taliban and al Queda - although there will be lots of
deserved criticism coming the Bush Administration's way if it turns out that
they neglected to finish the job in Afghanistan in order to do Hussein.
Matt C