Saying No to War
Within days, barring a diplomatic breakthrough, President Bush will
decide whether to send American troops into Iraq in the face of United
We believe there is a better option involving long-running, stepped-up
But like everyone else in America, we feel the window closing.
If it comes down to a question of yes or no to invasion without broad
international support, our answer is no.
Even though Hans Blix, the chief weapons inspector, said that Saddam
Hussein was not in complete compliance with United Nations orders to
disarm, the report of the inspectors on Friday was generally
devastating to the American position.
They not only argued that progress was being made, they also
discounted the idea that Iraq was actively attempting to manufacture
History shows that inspectors can be misled, and that Mr. Hussein can
never be trusted to disarm and stay disarmed on his own accord.
But a far larger and more aggressive inspection program, backed by a
firm and united Security Council, could keep a permanent lid on Iraq's
By adding hundreds of additional inspectors, using the threat of force
to give them a free hand and maintaining the option of attacking Iraq
if it tries to shake free of a smothering inspection program, the
United States could obtain much of what it was originally hoping to
Mr. Hussein would now be likely to accept such an intrusive U.N.
Had Mr. Bush managed the showdown with Iraq in a more measured manner,
he would now be in a position to rally the U.N. behind that bigger,
tougher inspection program, declare victory and take most of the
Unfortunately, by demanding regime change, Mr. Bush has made it much
harder for Washington to embrace this kind of long-term strategy.
He has talked himself into a corner where war or an unthinkable
American retreat seem to be the only alternatives visible to the
Every signal from the White House is that the diplomatic negotiations
will be over in days, not weeks.
Every signal from the United Nations is that when that day arrives,
the United States will not have Security Council sanction to attack.
There are circumstances under which the president would have to act
militarily no matter what the Security Council said.
If America was attacked, we would have to respond swiftly and
But despite endless efforts by the Bush administration to connect Iraq
to Sept. 11, the evidence simply isn't there.
The administration has demonstrated that Iraq had members of Al Qaeda
living within its borders, but that same accusation could be lodged
against any number of American allies in the region.
It is natural to suspect that one of America's enemies might be
actively aiding another, but nations are not supposed to launch
military invasions based on hunches and fragmentary intelligence.
The second argument the Bush administration cites for invading Iraq is
its refusal to obey U.N. orders that it disarm.
That's a good reason, but not when the U.N. itself believes
disarmament is occurring and the weapons inspections can be made to
If the United States ignores the Security Council and attacks on its
own, the first victim in the conflict will be the United Nations
The whole scenario calls to mind that Vietnam-era catch phrase about
how we had to destroy a village in order to save it.
President Bush has switched his own rationale for the invasion several
Right now, the underlying theory seems to be that the United States
can transform the Middle East by toppling Saddam Hussein, turning Iraq
into a showplace democracy and inspiring the rest of the region to
That's another fine goal that seems impossible to accomplish outside
the context of broad international agreement.
The idea that the resolution to all the longstanding, complicated
problems of that area begins with a quick military action is both
seductive and extremely dangerous.
The Bush administration has not been willing to risk any political
capital in attempting to resolve the conflict between Israel and the
Palestinians, but now the president is theorizing that invading Iraq
will do the trick.
Given the corner Mr. Bush has painted himself in, withdrawing troops
-- even if a considerable slice remains behind -- would be an
admission of failure.
He obviously intends to go ahead, and bet on the very good chance that
the Iraqi army will fall quickly.
The fact that the United Nations might be irreparably weakened would
not much bother his conservative political base at home, nor would the
But in the long run, this country needs a strong international body to
keep the peace and defuse tension in a dozen different potential
crisis points around the world.
It needs the support of its allies, particularly embattled states like
Pakistan, to fight the war on terror.
And it needs to demonstrate by example that there are certain rules
that everybody has to follow, one of the most important of which is
that you do not invade another country for any but the most compelling
When the purpose is fuzzy, or based on questionable propositions, it's
time to stop and look for other, less extreme means to achieve your
>Saying No to War
Oh God, how can we ever defeat the terrorists and their
weapons supplier, Iraq, without the blessings of the Times? Horrors!
Department Of Redundancy Department
A reminder: Why we are fighting:
America is a cowardly nation because our
military bombs targets in Iraq from a height
that makes it impossible for anti-aircraft
weaponry to reach them.
> But like everyone else in America, we feel the window closing.
> If it comes down to a question of yes or no to invasion without broad
> international support, our answer is no.
Who defines "broad"? The new People's Republic of the New York Times?
> By adding hundreds of additional inspectors, using the threat of force
> to give them a free hand and maintaining the option of attacking Iraq if
> it tries to shake free of a smothering inspection program, the United
> States could obtain much of what it was originally hoping to achieve.
Yeah, inspectors in blazing white vans going 15 mph. Might as well add
hundreds of pizza hut delivery cars...at least they go faster. I think
the Iraqis have got the "hide it 12 hours" drill down already. Its the
appearance of "inspecting" without "inspecting". We're getting our legs
pulled folks. Even those reports sound halfway convincing.
> Mr. Hussein would now be likely to accept such an intrusive U.N.
Only after Benny Hinn gives him the official knock out hand wave.
And you'd rather watch 3,000 cruise missiles rain down on defenseless
(and innocent) Iraqi civilians from the comfort of your easy chair on
CNN. Man, you right wingers are so brave. Why don't you take a trip
to Baghdad to get a front row seat ?
And afterwards what will you say when terrorists from Saudi Arabia,
Pakistan, and the other 'stans in the area unleash biological and
chemical attacks in your home town ? Will you ask for air strikes to
take them out ?
Blah blah blah, no one elected the NY Crimes for anything.
> From a New York Times editorial, 3/9/03:
> Saying No to War
> Within days, barring a diplomatic breakthrough, President Bush will
> decide whether to send American troops into Iraq in the face of United
> Nations opposition.
> Had Mr. Bush managed the showdown with Iraq in a more measured manner,
> he would now be in a position to rally the U.N. behind that bigger,
> tougher inspection program, declare victory and take most of the
> troops home.
"I left religion at age 12, and conservatism at age 26, to become the
godless pinko commie lying socialist weasel..."
-- Steve Kangas, DOA
Sure they did. He was elected President. The 2004 elections are just
around the corner. May I suggest you LET IT GO?
Who elected Tom Daschle as Senate Majority Leader two years ago?
More than two?
Blah blah blah, like Bush was elected?
>On Sun, 09 Mar 2003 07:38:52 -0500, Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com>
>>Saying No to War
> Oh God, how can we ever defeat the terrorists and their
>weapons supplier, Iraq, without the blessings of the Times? Horrors!
Once again the Usenet right wing makes a claim based in pure fantasy.
See my sig for details, Kenny.
"It still confuses many Americans that, in a world full of vicious slimeballs,
we're about to bomb one that didn't attack us on 9/11 (like Osama); that
isn't intercepting our planes (like North Korea); that isn't financing Al Qaeda
(like Saudi Arabia); that isn't home to Osama and his lieutenants (like Pakistan);
that isn't a host body for terrorists (like Iran, Lebanon and Syria)."
--Maurene Dowd, "Bush: The Xanax Cowboy"
Wrong. Daschle didn't even have to lift a finger. The title was magically
obtained because of nothing he did or did not do.
Wrong. The Senate elects it's leaders. Such and election was held and
Daschle was elected to be the Majority Leader.
And when Clinton carpet-bombed Belgrade for weeks on end, you Liberal
Whores applauded......from your comfy chairs, no less. Not a whimper
was heard from the Left when innocent people were killed. "KEEP"EM
COMMIMG" you screamed. "WE ARE THE POLICE OF THE WORLD!" And when we
bombed the Chinese Embassy, all you could say was "WHOOPS!"
The only difference between Milosivic and Saddam Hussein in the eyes of
Liberals is that the current U.S. President is not a Democrat. Party
affiliation is the litmus test used to decided whether military force
is justified or not
Liberals applauded the landing of forces in Haiti and Modadishu and
called it humanitarian aid. Yet, Saddam has already used torture,
starvation AND weapons of mass destruction on his own people, killing
millions, yet you'd rather see the poor buggers die than side with
Bush. Where is the humanitarian sentiment now??????
The truth is, it's not about terrorism, WMD, or humanitarian aid. What
drives you Liberal scum is partisanship, the ballot box and the pure
lust for power
Now you write that we shouldn't go after Saddam because of the pending
backlash by other terrorists.
I guess cowardice is just another Democratic platform for winning back
the WH. LOL!!!
So Belgrade is the same as Iraq/Baghdad ? 3,000 Cruise missiles in 48
Pick another straw man, asswipe.
>The only difference between Milosivic and Saddam Hussein in the eyes of
>Liberals is that the current U.S. President is not a Democrat. Party
>affiliation is the litmus test used to decided whether military force
>is justified or not
Who was President in 1991 when Milosevic started the Bosnian War ?
GHW Bush 1989-1993.
Who was President while Milosevic rose to power ?
R. Reagan 1981-1989
>Liberals applauded the landing of forces in Haiti and Modadishu and
>called it humanitarian aid. Yet, Saddam has already used torture,
>starvation AND weapons of mass destruction on his own people, killing
>millions, yet you'd rather see the poor buggers die than side with
>Bush. Where is the humanitarian sentiment now??????
Who was President in 1991 and STOPPED US forces outside Baghdad from
removing Saddam from power while we were there at a time and in a
place where it could have been accomplished with minimal civilian
Do you forget ? Or are you still focused on blowjobs and interns ?
>The truth is, it's not about terrorism, WMD, or humanitarian aid. What
>drives you Liberal scum is partisanship, the ballot box and the pure
>lust for power
Yeah, we like having our Presidents appointed by the Supreme Court.
Who needs elections.
>Now you write that we shouldn't go after Saddam because of the pending
>backlash by other terrorists.
That's correct. It's called cause and effect. We caused the WTC
disaster by training and funding Osama Bin Laden while he was in
Afghanistan. We IGNORE the complicity of the Saudis while focusing on
Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.
And we continue to allow innocent Palestinians to be slaughtered by
the NAZI-like Israeli government. As long as we support Israel and
their slaughter of Muslims, we'll deserve what is sent our way.
>I guess cowardice is just another Democratic platform for winning back
>the WH. LOL!!!
The idiot GW Bush is taking care of the next election results all by
himself. He'll need more than his brother and the Supreme Court to be
reelected next time.
"Ride bene chi ride l'ultimo"
Say, Mr. Blah Blah, nobody elected your hero-god Shrubbie,
Oops, sorry, that's not right--I forgot...he *was* elected...the
vote was 5-4.
"President Bush says that he does not need approval from the U.N.
to wage war...and I'm thinking, "Well, hell, he really didn't
need the approval of the American voters to become president
either, did he?" - David Letterman
I just love it! They are still crying in their beer about getting their
asses kicked out of office. Not once, but twice.
>Once again the Usenet right wing makes a claim based in pure fantasy.
>See my sig for details, Kenny.
>"It still confuses many Americans that, in a world full of vicious slimeballs,
>we're about to bomb one that didn't attack us on 9/11 (like Osama)..."
Friday, March 7, 2003 1:57 p.m. EST
CIA's Woolsey Tells Court: Iraq Involved in 9/11
Former CIA Director James Woolsey offered bombshell testimony this
week in a lawsuit brought by the families of World Trade Center
victims that implicates Saddam Hussein in the 9/11 attacks.
The one-time Clinton administration intelligence chief described what
he said was a conspiracy between al-Qaeda and Baghdad. As evidence he
offered accounts from Iraqi defectors who have described a Boeing 707
jet parked on the ground at the terrorist training camp Salman Pak.
The plane, the eyewitnesses insist, was used as a hijacking school
prior to 9/11.
Since 1995 Saddam's most elite terror operatives had allegedly used
Salman Pak to train al-Qaeda recruits to overcome U.S. flight crews
using methods employed on 9/11, according to London's Observer
newspaper. In November 2001, dozens of other reports, including
several in the New York Times, covered news of Saddam's Salman Pak
hijacking school based on the defectors' accounts.
"I believe it is definitely more likely than not that some degree of
common knowledge between [al-Qaeda and Iraq] was involved here,"
Woolsey told a Manhattan federal court on Monday, according to the New
York Daily News.
He compared the relationship between Baghdad and Osama bin Laden's
terror network to two Mafia families "who hate each other, kill each
other from time to time but are still capable of working together
against a common enemy," according to testimony quoted by the
At the very least, Saddam Hussein is guilty of aiding and abetting the
activities of al-Qaeda, Woolsey contended.
He also offered evidence suggesting that Baghdad had prior knowledge
of the 9/11 attacks.
A July 21, 2001, article in an Egyptian newspaper, headlined "America,
an Obsession with Osama bin Laden," indicated that Baghdad knew what
was coming less than months later, the former U.S. intelligence chief
told the court. The report, written by an Iraqi, predicted bin Laden
would target both New York City and the Pentagon.
Woolsey noted a line in the story warning that bin Laden would "strike
America on the arm that is already hurting," explaining that the
phrase was likely a reference to the 1993 bombing of the World Trade
No Iraqi journalist would write such a report without his government's
knowledge and approval, Woolsey testified.
Hey Roger, I voted for the dimwit Bush but my opinion of him has
changed considerably once he had to start acting like a President.
He's not qualified to be President. He has no world view. He thinks
might makes right.
He ignores the domestic economic problems and believes that tax cuts
for those holding stocks will energize the economy. It won't.
He believes that it's his job to protect us. If that is true, he's
going about it the wrong way. He should reel in Israel and force them
to make peace with the Palestinians. He then should meet with the
Arab League on their turf and explain exactly what the hell he plans
to do about international terrorism and ask them for assistance. They
can do a lot more than he can if he can get them to "trust" us.
>On Sun, 09 Mar 2003 19:30:38 GMT, Bush Busta <Bush...@America.com>
>>Once again the Usenet right wing makes a claim based in pure fantasy.
>>See my sig for details, Kenny.
>>"It still confuses many Americans that, in a world full of vicious slimeballs,
>>we're about to bomb one that didn't attack us on 9/11 (like Osama)..."
>Friday, March 7, 2003 1:57 p.m. EST
>CIA's Woolsey Tells Court: Iraq Involved in 9/11
>Former CIA Director James Woolsey offered bombshell testimony this
>week in a lawsuit brought by the families of World Trade Center
>victims that implicates Saddam Hussein in the 9/11 attacks.
Was he questioned about this fact ?
November 2, 2001, 12:00 PST -- On October 31 the French daily Le
Figaro dropped a bombshell. While in a Dubai hospital receiving
treatment for a chronic kidney infection last July, Osama bin Laden
met with a top CIA official -- presumably the chief of station. The
meeting, held in bin Laden's private suite, took place at the American
hospital in Dubai at a time when he was a wanted fugitive for the
bombings of two U.S. embassies and last year's attack on the U.S.S.
Cole. Bin Laden was eligible for execution according to a 2000
intelligence finding issued by President Bill Clinton before leaving
office in January. Yet on July 14, 2001 he was allowed to leave Dubai
on a private jet, and there were no Navy fighters waiting to force him
>The one-time Clinton administration intelligence chief described what
>he said was a conspiracy between al-Qaeda and Baghdad. As evidence he
>offered accounts from Iraqi defectors who have described a Boeing 707
>jet parked on the ground at the terrorist training camp Salman Pak.
>The plane, the eyewitnesses insist, was used as a hijacking school
>prior to 9/11.
Or this ?
June 2001 -- German intelligence, the BND, warns the CIA and Israel
that Middle Eastern terrorists are "planning to hijack commercial
aircraft to use as weapons to attack important symbols of American and
Israeli culture." [Source: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Sept. 14,
Or this ?
summer 2001 -- The online newswire online.ie reports on Sept. 14 that
an Iranian man phones U.S. law enforcement to warn of an imminent
attack on the WTC in the week of Sept. 9. German police confirm the
calls but state that the U.S. Secret Service would not reveal any
further information. [Source:
Or this ?
summer 2001 -- Jordanian intelligence, the GID, makes a communications
intercept deemed so important that King Abdullah's men relay it to
Washington, probably through the CIA station in Amman. To make doubly
sure the message got through it was passed through an Arab
intermediary to a German intelligence agent. The message: A major
attack was planned inside the U.S., and aircraft would be used. The
code name of the operation was "The Big Wedding." "When it became
clear that the information was embarrassing to Bush Administration
officials and congressmen who at first denied that there had been any
such warnings before Sept. 11, senior Jordanian officials backed away
from their earlier confirmations." This case was authenticated by ABC
reporter John K. Cooley. [Source: International Herald Tribune (IHT),
May 21, 2002]
Or this ?
summer 2001 (est.) -- The National Security Agency intercepts
telephone conversations between bin Laden aide Khalid Shaikh Mohammed
and Mohammed Atta and does not share the information with any other
agencies. [Source: Jonathan Landay, Knight Ridder Newspapers, June 6,
Or this ?
summer 2001 -- Russian intelligence notifies the CIA that 25 terrorist
pilots have been specifically training for missions involving hijacked
airliners. This is reported in the Russian press and news stories are
translated for FTW by a retired CIA officer. (Note: The story
currently on the Izvestia web site has been edited to delete a key
paragraph.) [Source: Izvestia, Sept. 12, 2001,
Or this ?
July 26, 2001 -- CBS News reports that John Ashcroft has stopped
flying commercial airlines due a threat assessment. Ashcroft told the
press that he didn't know anything about what had caused it.
Or this ?
Aug. 2, 2001 -- U.S. ambassador to Pakistan, Christine Rocca (a former
CIA officer), meets in Islamabad with a Taliban ambassador and demands
the extradition of bin Laden. This was the last known meeting on the
subject. [Source: Brisard and Dasquie, p. 79. Thanks to Prof. Peter
Or this ?
Aug. 11 or 12, 2001 -- U.S. Navy Lt. Delmart "Mike" Vreeland, jailed
in Toronto on U.S. fraud charges and claiming to be an officer with
U.S. naval intelligence, writes details of the pending WTC attacks and
seals them in an envelope, which he gives to Canadian authorities.
[Source: The Toronto Star, Oct. 23, 2001; Toronto Superior Court
Or this ?
August 2001 -- Russian President Vladimir Putin orders Russian
intelligence to warn the U.S. government "in the strongest possible
terms" of imminent attacks on airports and government buildings.
[Source: MSNBC interview with Putin, Sept. 15, 2001]
Or this ?
August 2001 -- President Bush receives classified intelligence
briefings at his Crawford, Texas ranch indicating that Osama bin Laden
might be planning to hijack commercial airliners. [CBS News; CNN, May
Or this ?
Sept. 6-7, 2001 -- Put options (a speculation that the stock will go
down) totaling 4,744 are purchased on United Air Lines stock, as
opposed to only 396 call options (speculation that the stock will go
up). This is a dramatic and abnormal increase in sales of put options.
Many of the United puts are purchased through Deutschebank/A.B. Brown,
a firm managed until 1998 by the current executive director of the
CIA, A.B. "Buzzy" Krongard. [Source: The Herzliyya International
Policy Institute for Counterterrorism (ICT), www.ict.org.il, Sept. 21,
2001 (Note: The ICT article on possible terrorist insider trading
appeared eight days after the 9/11 attacks.); The New York Times; The
Wall Street Journal; The San Francisco Chronicle, Sept. 29, 2001]
Sept. 10, 2001 -- Put options totaling 4,516 are purchased on American
Airlines as compared to 748 call options. [Source: Herzliyya Institute
Sept. 6-11, 2001 -- No other airlines show any similar trading
patterns to those experienced by United and American. The put option
purchases on both airlines were 600 percent above normal. This at a
time when Reuters (Sept. 10) issues a business report stating,
"Airline stocks may be poised to take off."
Sept. 6-10, 2001 -- Highly abnormal levels of put options are
purchased in Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, AXA Re(insurance) which
owns 25 percent of American Airlines, and Munich Re. All of these
companies are directly impacted by the Sept. 11 attacks. [Source: ICT,
above; FTW, Oct. 18, 2001,
-- It has been documented that the CIA, the Israeli Mossad, and many
other intelligence agencies monitor stock trading in real time using
highly advanced programs reported to be descended from Promis
software. This is to alert national intelligence services of just such
kinds of attacks. Promis was reported as recently as June 2001 to be
in Osama bin Laden's possession and, as a result of recent stories by
Fox, both the FBI and the Justice Department have confirmed its use
for U.S. intelligence gathering through at least summer 2002. This
would confirm that CIA had additional advance warning of imminent
attacks. [Sources: The Washington Times, June 15, 2001; Fox, Oct. 16,
2001; FTW, Oct. 26, 2001, --
FTW, Vol. IV, No. 6, Sept. 18, 2001 --
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/sept1801.html; FTW, Vol.
III, No. 7, Sept. 30, 2000 --
Sept. 9, 2001 -- President George W. Bush is presented with detailed
war plans to overthrow Al Qaeda, according to U.S. and foreign sources
speaking to NBC News. [Source: MSNBC, May 16, 2002. Thanks to Prof.
Peter Dale Scott]
Sept. 10, 2001 -- On Sept. 10, Newsweek has learned, a group of top
Pentagon officials suddenly cancelled travel plans for the next
morning, apparently because of security concerns. [Source: Newsweek,
Sept. 24, 2001 issue, story by Evan Thomas]
Sept. 11, 2001 -- Employees of Odigo, Inc. in Israel, one of the
world's largest instant messaging companies with offices in New York,
receive threat warnings of an imminent attack on the WTC less than two
hours before the first plane hits. Law enforcement authorities have
gone silent about any investigation of this. The Odigo research and
development offices in Israel are located in the city of Herzliyya, a
ritzy suburb of Tel Aviv that is the same location as the Institute
for Counter Terrorism, which eight days later reports details of
insider trading on 9-11. [Source: CNN's Daniel Sieberg, Sept. 28,
2001; MSNBC Newsbytes, Brian McWilliams, Sept. 27, 2001; Ha'aretz,
Sept. 26, 2001]
What, you think weakness and appeasement makes right?
> He ignores the domestic economic problems and believes that tax cuts
> for those holding stocks will energize the economy. It won't.
Who are your economic advisors, and where did you get your BA and MBA?
> He believes that it's his job to protect us. If that is true, he's
> going about it the wrong way.
He should reel in Israel and force them
> to make peace with the Palestinians.
If the Palestinians want peace, they're just going to have to stop using
children to blow up children.
>From a New York Times editorial, 3/9/03:
>Saying No to War
-----Snipped for being the NYT--------
Question: What's the difference between democrats and the French?
Answer: Personal hygiene.....
>Harry the liberal loser lemming
>On Sun, 09 Mar 2003 08:16:25 -0500, "Ken [NY)" <em...@below.the_text>
>>On Sun, 09 Mar 2003 07:38:52 -0500, Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com>
>>>Saying No to War
>> Oh God, how can we ever defeat the terrorists and their
>>weapons supplier, Iraq, without the blessings of the Times? Horrors!
>Once again the Usenet right wing makes a claim based in pure fantasy.
Sorry Bush Busta ur nuts, but it would be you living the life
of the clueless....
Why are dudocrats soooo stupid?
New York Times wins bid to publish DNC's propaganda.
"FauxPrez" <sh...@whitehouse.gov> wrote in message
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.459 / Virus Database: 258 - Release Date: 2/25/2003