Who's your choice for Mayor in 2015?

Saturday, April 29, 2006

You MUST read this...

Have you wondered why so much fuss is made about the tragedy in Darfur? Frankly, I confess I had paid little or no attention to the situation. However, the Freedonian has a gripping post about why the situation is so horrible, and why the US does nothing (here's a hint: oil is involved, who knew?)

Hat tip to Autoegocrat for the link.

22 comments:

AnonymousConservative said...

You liberals act like the crisis in the Sudan just started recently. It has been going on for years since the civil war began and it's Christian conservatives that have been trying to bring attention to it. I'm glad you all are joining us on this one and if your egotism saves even one life or keeps one more young girl out of slavery its worth having to put up wtih it.

For at least 10 years Sudanese Christians and Animists have been tortured, murdered, and enslaved by the Islamic government in Khartoum. I tried to bring attention to this issue at Model UN conferences in high school in the 90's, and seeing the images of the pain that these people have had to go through has lived with me since then. I highly resent your assumption that conservatives turn a blind eye to human rights abuses like this, when liberals also have been ignoring the issue all this time.

There is no question that both Clinton and Bush failed to act on this issue, just as Clinton failed to act in Rwanda. However I have no doubt that had we sent troops into Sudan instead of Iraq; this very blog would be protesting and suggesting that we help the maligned Kurds out in Iraq instead.

Maybe you and your liberal blogger friends should turn your attention towards making our elected officials in both parties aware of the plight of the Sudanese - rather than using their suffering to launch another salvo in your ideological and partisan war.

Wintermute said...

Link is bad. I think this is what you want:

http://thefreedonian.blogspot.com/2006/04/from-bad-to-worse-in-darfur.html

FWIW, I decline pleas for my government to be the world's policeman and to effect regime change.

Freedonian said...

"I highly resent your assumption that conservatives turn a blind eye to human rights abuses like this, when liberals also have been ignoring the issue all this time."

And I highly resent that your side of the fence would rather parse over the definition of "genocide" than actually do something to prove me wrong.

"There is no question that both Clinton and Bush failed to act on this issue, just as Clinton failed to act in Rwanda."

There were other problems in Sudan before, but the current genocide started in 2003. Nothing on this scale happened before then.

"However I have no doubt that had we sent troops into Sudan instead of Iraq; this very blog would be protesting and suggesting that we help the maligned Kurds out in Iraq instead."

Don't you feel even a twinge of guilt there? You're trying to use gassing the Kurds as some apology for a logical argument, but... Your side sold him the gas.

"Maybe you and your liberal blogger friends should turn your attention towards making our elected officials in both parties aware of the plight of the Sudanese - rather than using their suffering to launch another salvo in your ideological and partisan war."

Sam Brownback excepted, you have no one on your side of the fence willing to acknowledge that the problem exists. Five of ours just got arrested over there.

So here's a better idea. If your concern over this massacre is as genuine as you claim, try to find a Republican besides Brownback that has the balls to push for a solution on the floor.

PeskyFly said...

And Groucho with the takedown.

Exactly.

thurbis said...

I'm glad you brought this up, Cracker! I welcome the attention to Darfur because I don't think we should ignore massive suffering that we're seeing.

Of course it does make one wonder what purpose the United Nations serves. What exactly is the role of the United Nations nowdays? Does the United Nations exist to do anything other than get Russian diplomats out of DUI charges in New York and fleece the world with complicity in scandals like the Oil for Food Scandal?

It is interesting how the world doesn't want America being the policeman of the world. . .that is until something needs to be done.

I for one do not want to see a repeat of the disastrous Rwandan policy we got from the Clinton Administration.

US chose to ignore Rwandan genocide - Classified papers show Clinton was aware of 'final solution' to eliminate Tutsis
http://www.guardian.co.uk/rwanda/story/0,14451,1183889,00.html

Per the Guardian: "President Bill Clinton's administration knew Rwanda was being engulfed by genocide in April 1994 but buried the information to justify its inaction, according to classified documents made available for the first time. . .It took Hutu death squads three months from April 6 to murder an estimated 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus and at each stage accurate, detailed reports were reaching Washington's top policymakers. The documents undermine claims by Mr Clinton and his senior officials that they did not fully appreciate the scale and speed of the killings. "It's powerful proof that they knew," said Alison des Forges, a Human Rights Watch researcher and authority on the genocide.

You can find a lot of State Department memo's on that subject here -
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB53/

I do find it curious that those concerned about genocide in Darfur don't mention the hundreds of mass graves found in Iraq; there was genocide there as well and yet there are many who want to impeach the President who put an end to that regime.

For good information on the situation in Darfur, you can go to the Human Rights Watch web site:

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/05/05/darfur8536.htm

From the HRW FAQ: "The Sudanese government buys and receives military supplies from several countries, including China, Russia, Belarus and others. Sudan’s government revenues have increased substantially since it began exporting oil in August 1999—it is now estimated to be between one-half and one billion dollars a year. As a result, Sudan has been able to purchase additional attack helicopters, MiGs, and other materiel."

Gee, weren't Russia and China (along with ole France. . .you know, the "usual suspects" in Casablanca lingo) also busting our chops on the Security Council over Iraq?

The current issue of Foreign Affairs put it this way: "Judging from his private statements, the single most important element in Saddam's strategic calculus was his faith that France and Russia would prevent an invasion by the United States. According to Aziz, Saddam's confidence was firmly rooted in his belief in the nexus between the economic interests of France and Russia and his own strategic goals: "France and Russia each secured millions of dollars worth of trade and service contracts in Iraq, with the implied understanding that their political posture with regard to sanctions on Iraq would be pro-Iraqi. In addition, the French wanted sanctions lifted to safeguard their trade and service contracts in Iraq. Moreover, they wanted to prove their importance in the world as members of the Security Council -- that they could use their veto to show they still had power.". . .during the first ten days of the war, Iraq asked Russia, France, and China not to support cease-fire initiatives because Saddam believed such moves would legitimize the coalition's presence in Iraq"

Just about the only three names that didn't show up in Oil for Food Scandal on the "on the take" list were Bush, Cheney and Haliburton!

But, I digress. There's lots of good info on Darfur on the Human Rights Watch web site.

http://hrw.org/doc?t=africa&c=darfur

This tragedy in Sudan has been going on for quite some time.

From a 1994 Human Rights Watch Report: "-- the situation of Christians in the government of Sudan-controlled areas in the Nuba Mountains remains particularly difficult, although since May 1993 some improvement has been reported;17 during the years 1990-94 a large number of cases of harassment of ordinary Christian citizens, as well as church personnel, were reported and well documented, as were cases where the right to freedom of religion was violated."

From a 1999 Human Rights Watch Report we get this: "Human Rights Watch has long denounced the contemporary form of slavery practiced in Sudan in the context of the fifteen-year civil war. This practice is conducted almost entirely by government-backed and armed militia of the Baggara tribe in western Sudan, and it is directed mostly at the civilian Dinka population of the southern region of Bahr El Ghazal. . . ."

Naturally, this nimrod had to recently inject his two cents:
"I call on mujahedeen and their supporters, especially in Sudan and the Arab peninsula, to prepare for long war again the crusader plunderers in Western Sudan. . . .Our goal is not defending the Khartoum government but to defend Islam, its land and its people. I urge holy warriors to be acquainted with the land and the tribes in Darfur." Osama bin Laden. blah blah blah. If anyone needs Cartmans anal probe it's this poindexter.

Right wingers have been concerned about what's going on in Sudan for quite awhile:

From 2000: China and Sudan:Trading oil for humans
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=20575

Per the article: "To most Americans, slavery is a cruel historical fact from our national past. I have news for you. Slavery is not dead. America is missing a modern story of human suffering. The pleas of present day slaves seeking freedom. People are being sold like cattle into human bondage in exchange for black gold. Dr. Charles Jacobs from the Boston-based American Anti-Slavery group recently noted that slavery is part of the 13-year-old war in Sudan. The Muslim Sudanese government has launched a holy war against the black Christian and animist south. The war has left nearly two million dead and hundreds of thousands of homeless refugees. Arab militias, armed by the government, have been raiding African villages, shooting the men and enslaving the women and children. The latter are kept as personal property or marched north and sold. . . . .The reason for China's interest in the Sudan is pure and simple. There is oil in Sudan. Petrochina, a company wholly owned by the Chinese government cut a deal with the Sudanese Muslim government to pump oil from the remote southern areas. To accomplish this task, China is building an oil pipeline right through the combat zone. Chinese soldiers are stationed on the pipeline to protect it. Chinese soldiers are working with the Sudanese Muslim soldiers to clear whole areas of the Christian population from around the pipeline. . . .America is not innocent in this matter. Petrochina was recently sponsored by Goldman Sachs to raise investment funding in America. The investment offering by Goldman Sachs might have failed if it were not for BP/Amoco, which invested billions of dollars into the Sudan pipeline. Today, neither BP/Amoco nor Goldman Sachs wish to comment on exactly how much American money is being used by Petrochina to murder Sudanese civilians.

Next time any of us drive by BP/Amoco, just ponder the above info.

As for the update, "FWIW, I decline pleas for my government to be the world's policeman and to effect regime change", well, that is at least refreshingly consistent! I have Libertarian friends who feel the same way, and I can understand their concerns.

As for the update, "I highly resent that your side of the fence would rather parse over the definition of "genocide" than actually do something to prove me wrong" I say "puh-leeze!"

There was more than a little bit of quibling of the definition of genocide back in 1994 so you really can't paint this as a one side or the other situation.

Lying About Rwanda's Genocide by David Corn
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?pid=1353

Per David Corn, President Clinton
- ". . . .did not have to depend on the top-secret PDBs or NIDs to learn that there was a genocide transpiring in Rwanda. As the Archive notes, "beginning April 8th, the massacres in Rwanda were reported on the front pages of major newspapers and on radio and television broadcasts almost daily, including the major papers read by U.S. officials and policy elites. . . In the first weeks of this tragedy, human rights advocates urged Clinton to issue a clear and forceful declaration that a genocide was happening and that the killers could expect to be tracked down and tried for crimes against humanity. But the Clinton administration dithered for weeks over whether to use the G-word, for doing so would have compelled the administration, under international law, to take direct steps to stop the killings. But after the disaster in Somalia, Clinton had no stomach for becoming involved in another messy conflict in Africa. In public, he had more to say about the caning of a young American in Singapore than the murders of hundreds of thousands in wanda.. .Four years after the killings, Clinton told the Rwandans (and the world) that he had not tried to stop the genocide because he had not known what was truly occurring. Ignorance was not the reason. It had been a political decision. Clinton was fibbing to the survivors of genocide. And this deceptive remark sparked practically no outrage. Today, ten years after the Rwanda massacre, the inaction of the United States and the world community should not be forgotten, nor should Clinton's untruthful excuse."

One thing you could point out is that all of the isolationists who criticized President Clinton for using milirary force in Kosovo (with no declaration of war from congress and with no UN mandate) would have been whining about any meaningful actions taken to save Rwandans in 1994. When we don't get behind our Presidents during dangerous times, a lot of people can get hurt.

Somehow "never again" has morphed into Alred E. Neumans "what?me worry?" Where is the brain from Planet Auros when we need it?

Hope you're having a good vac.so far Cracker!

autoegocrat said...

Hey Anonymous Conservative, our elected officials are aware of the plight of the Sudanese. They just got arrested for it.

Your pretend scenario where Bush rides into Sudan on horseback to save the day, only to be met with liberal opposition, is pure-D bullshit. If Bush had moved one inch in the direction of Sudan after 9-11 the whole world would have followed his lead.

Face it, buster, the Iraq War was dead wrong, everyone knew it, five million took to the streets to oppose it, and if you really gave a damn about Sudan for as long as you say you have, you would have opposed the illegal invasion of Iraq as well.

The fighting in Sudan was one of the reasons liberals opposed the Iraq War. Google it, you ignorant right-wing freak. How dare you act like we just found out about this yesterday.

thurbis said...

Can you explain to me exactly what part of the post by anonymousconservative merited this diatribe? Where in his/her post did he/she "pretend scenario where Bush rides into Sudan on horseback to save the day, only to be met with liberal opposition, is pure-D bullshit"?

You state, "Face it, buster, the Iraq War was dead wrong, everyone knew it"; really? Exactly how so? Iraq was not only in violation of over a decade of UN resolutions relative to wmd,wmd programs and its state sponsorship of terrorism, it was also in violation of the cease fire it had agreed to at the end of the first Gulf War. Practically all of the claims made by George W. Bush about Iraq and wmd had been made by the previous administration; the only difference is that -without something like 9/11 and the subsequent war on terrorism -President Clinton would not have had the support to actually implement the official policy established by the Clinton administration of regime change in Iraq.

The Iraq Liberation Act
October 31, 1998
http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/libera.htm

It was President Clinton who, in the Iraqi Liberation Act stated: "My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership."

After 9/11 the Bush administration simply agreed with the position of the Clinton administration; and, by the way, the war on terrorism just wasn't directed at osama bin laden and al quaeda.

"Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated. . . .Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." President George W. Bush /September 20, 2001

Iraq was on the State Departments list of state sponsors of terorism all through the 1990's, it was in violation of over a decade of UN resolutions relative to wmd and its state sponsorship of terrorism, and it had blatently violated the terms of the cease fire it had agreed to for Saddam Hussein to stay in power after the first Gulf War.

Furthermore, Saddam Hussein was genocidal maniac and the double standard we're getting from the left on this is appalling.

The New York Sun makes a great point in its May 1 (that's May Day for all you lefties!) editorial:

Darfur Double Standard
New York Sun Staff Editorial
http://www.nysun.com/pf.php?id=31898

Per the editorial:
_________________________________
The tens of thousands who gathered in Washington yesterday for a rally say they want to stop the genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan. We welcome them to the fight, and wish them luck. This newspaper sent a reporter and photographer into Darfur in May 2004. They were among the first American journalists to find firsthand evidence and testimony of atrocities, including ethnic cleansing.

We'd be remiss, however, if we didn't say that we also hope that the Darfur rally yesterday helps to illuminate the hypocrisy of some of those on the left. They want military action now to oppose a genocidal regime in Sudan and to protect its victims. Yet they opposed military action in Iraq to oust a regime, in that of Saddam Hussein, that had engaged in ethnic cleansing of Iraqi Kurds and Shiites and had rained scud missiles on Israeli cities.

This Darfur double standard was underscored by the list of announced speakers for yesterday's "Save Darfur" rally. They included at least three members of Congress - Nancy Pelosi, Donald Payne, and Michael Capuano - who voted against the liberation of Iraq. Mr. Payne, a Democrat of New Jersey, has reportedly gone so far as to say of the Iraq war, "I have never seen such a misuse of our power." Ms. Pelosi, a Californian who is the Democratic leader in the House, has endorsed Rep. John Murtha's demand for an immediate American withdrawal from Iraq.

The scheduled speakers at yesterday's Save Darfur rally also included the Reverend Al Sharpton and the Democrat who lost in 1997 to Mayor Giuliani, Ruth Messinger. Rev. Sharpton and Ms. Messinger have marched against the Iraq war in New York behind the banner of United for Peace and Justice, an anti-Israel front group whose steering committee includes a representative of the Communist Party USA.

Just to underscore the double standard, Rev. Sharpton reportedly marched against the Iraq war in New York on Saturday, then marched in Washington on Sunday for more intervention in Sudan. Even worse, the Saturday march was organized by United for Peace and Justice, which has moved well beyond opposing the Iraq war. It now opposes any American action against Iran. "United for Peace and Justice opposes any military action against Iran, as well as covert action and sanctions," the organization's Web site says. The site includes letters for activists to send to Congress, saying, "Iran does not present a threat to the United States" and calling for taking away Israel's nuclear weapons.

Another scheduled speaker at yesterday's Save Darfur rally was a leader of the Union for Reform Judaism, Rabbi David Saperstein, whose movement sent a letter to President Bush calling for withdrawal of troops from Iraq and arguing that the Iraq war had discredited America in the international community and contributed to the growth of terrorism.

Also a scheduled speaker at the Save Darfur rally was a representative of the National Council of Churches. Its Web site's "resources for peace" includes a "call on governments to review all forms of military cooperation with the State of Israel including instituting a strict arms embargo until such time that Israel withdraws completely from the Palestinian territories."

We do not mean to suggest that this hypocrisy poisons the cause of Darfur. The speakers at yesterday's Save Darfur rally included some supporters of the Iraq war. Mr. Bush himself endorsed the event, meeting with some activists Friday and saying, "for those of you who are going out to march for justice, you represent the best of our country."

Mr. Bush is way ahead of the leftist Darfur advocates because he supports freedom and democracy and opposes terrorism everywhere - not only in Darfur, but also in Iraq and Iran and Israel. He understands that Iran's tyrants, Sudan's regime, and Saddam Hussein are of a type. Before Mr. Bush met with the Darfur activists Friday, he met in the Oval office with a group of defectors from North Korea in what he called "one of the most moving meetings since I've been the president."

Consistency is important here, all the more so because the Holocaust is invoked by so many of the Save Darfur protesters. Those who saw the destruction of European Jewry by the Nazis are moved to prevent the further destruction of the Darfurians by the Sudanese. As well they should be. But when the Holocaust is invoked to protect Africans by those who counsel inaction, retreat, or disarmament when Israelis and Americans are threatened or attacked, one wonders about a double standard.

It's wonderful and encouraging that tens of thousands turned out to support action in Darfur yesterday and to protest the Sudanese regime. But when one considers that a similar rally against the Iranian president's vow to wipe Israel off the map attracted but a few hundred participants, it's unnerving. Perhaps, as our Benny Avni writes elsewhere in today's Sun, the American victory at the U.N. Security Council on Darfur will pave the way for a similar victory over Iran. For international crisis intervention need not be an either-or proposition. Opposing the war in Iraq while favoring an intervention in Sudan is akin to the position of an American during World War II who favored fighting Japan but taking a strictly pacifist stance toward Germany. It's so illogical as to make one wonder why.
_________________________________


Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have both reported on the hundreds of mass graves found in Iraq; it's sad that the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqi's are simply not politically helpful for those who want to impeach the current administration for doing in Iraq what the very people advocating impeachment are demanding that it do in Sudan.

My guess is that most of the people posting here are nice (albeit with different opinions and views) but I do think that its sad for someone to try and marginalize anothers views by claiming that they wrote something that they didn't actually write and then calling that person an "ignorant right-wing freak".

I'm still not even sure how one can logically write, "if you really gave a damn about Sudan for as long as you say you have, you would have opposed the illegal invasion of Iraq as well."

I agree with the New York Sun editorial: "Opposing the war in Iraq while favoring an intervention in Sudan is akin to the position of an American during World War II who favored fighting Japan but taking a strictly pacifist stance toward Germany. It's so illogical as to make one wonder why."

You, my friend, are illogical. Do not pass go, do not collect $100, but please do live long and prosper.

Freedonian said...

The New York Sun makes a great point in its May 1 (that's May Day for all you lefties!)

I also refer to it as "Mission Accomplished Day" in honor of the photo op that was planned better than the war. Just a tad premature. Three years after "Mission Accomplished", we've got almost half of the country under control.

The next time Bush plans a costume party, I would recommend that he dress as a ballerina.

The Iraq Liberation Act
October 31, 1998


Say, what was the date the war started? March 19, 2003, right? Just about six weeks before the aforementioned photo op on "Mission Accomplished Day", I believe.

That's because the Iraq Liberation Act stated that NEXT TIME we went into Iraq, we wouldn't leave Saddam standing.

Of course, much happened between 1998 and 2003, like getting inspectors back into Iraq (Had Bush stopped at that, I would have to tip my hat to him). Instead, we called Hussein's WMD report incomplete simply because he didn't claim the weapons that he... You know, turned out not to have.

Iraq was on the State Departments list of state sponsors of terorism all through the 1990's

Which was approrpriate, given that their last act of terrorism was the 1993 attempt to assassinate Bush Sr. An attempt so weak that it not only earned the Iraqi government the nickname "The Marx Brothers of International Terror", but it scuttled any delusions of grandeur that Hussein had envisioning himself as a terror mastermind.

They want military action now to oppose a genocidal regime in Sudan and to protect its victims. Yet they opposed military action in Iraq to oust a regime, in that of Saddam Hussein, that had engaged in ethnic cleansing of Iraqi Kurds and Shiites and had rained scud missiles on Israeli cities.


What would happen to a group that takes up arms in an attempt to overthrow the US Government? They would be killed.

The Shi'ite slaughter, although tragic, happened because Bush Sr. told them "Rebel against Saddam, and we'll have your back". Then he bailed on them like they were an Alabama National Guard unit.

The Kurds? Yeah, there was a campaign to destroy the Kurds. Bush Sr and Ronald Reagan sent Don Rumsfeld to Iraq several times to make sure he didn't run out of chemicals.

It's also important to note that more people have been killed in Darfur in the last three years than there are provable kills for the entirety of Saddam's reign. To date, we've found the graves of 5000 so far, many of them springing from the aforementioned Shia uprising that Bush Sr. sold out.

it's sad that the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqi's are simply not politically helpful for those who want to impeach the current administration for doing in Iraq what the very people advocating impeachment are demanding that it do in Sudan.


There are things floating in the sewer that have more substance than the arguments used to sell the American public on this war. And what's really sad is that you seem to be among the 32% that don't really care.

polar donkey said...

Thanks Thurbis for throwing a bunch of gorrilla dust in the air and the filibuster.
First, in 2002 and early 2003, I don't believe Saddam was pursuing an ethnic cleansing campaign. The Kurds in the north have had an autonomyous region since 1991-92. The large scale attacks on shites in the south, especially the marshland ones, had been carried out right after the first Gulf War when George I called on them to rebell and then left them hanging. Saddam's regime had remained brutual but not near the level of of 80's and early 90's when he consolidated his hold on power. There was no pressing ethnic crisis in Iraq when the war started in 2003. But there is now. A 100,000 Iraq's have been displaced recently because of ethnic violence. Kurds are committing ethnic cleansing in Kirkuk to take the oil. Ask a Turkmen in northern Iraq if he had bigger ethnic problems with Saddam or Kurds? All across central Iraq shites and Kurds are moving from integrated areas to ethnically homogeneous ones. While the sunnis blow up mosques with cars bombs. The shites go out with militias and selectively assasinate hundreds of sunnis. I think Saddam was more motivated by power than ethnicity and would kill anybody that opposed him, including sunni members of his own family.
Second, throwing up all this rhetoric about fighting terrorism, supporting freedom and democracy, and Bush being consistent. That's a load of crap. Yeah Iraq was on the state department terrorist watch list, the main reason being Saddam would pay palestinian suicide bombers' families $20,000. Suicide bombers blowing up Israeli civilians is wrong, but I think the saudis were paying Palestinians too. Plus, 15 out of the 19 9/11 bombers were Saudi. Not one was Iraqi. As for Bush's consistent fight against terrorism. He had the chance to kill Al-Zarqawi in Kurdish held territory in northern Iraq for over a year and he didn't do it. How many people has Zarqawi's group killed in Iraq since the US invasion. Now Zarqawi has a jihad training acedemy in Iraq and he's training lunatics to go spread the instability around the world. I believe this is called blow back and was the exact same thing that happened with Afghanistan and Al-Qeada. Good job Bush.
As for freedom and democracy, between the British and the US, the west has been promising to bring freedom and democracy to the middle east for 80 years. Pardon, middle easterners if they have a cynical view of these promises. Maybe if we had been working more towards bringing some equality and justice to this region of the world for the past 8 decades, the middle east might be a better place and be more on a path to democracy. Instead, we've poured billions of dollars into Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iran under the shah, and Israel, not to mention all the CIA sponsored coups and half-ass military expeditions. Now in the middle east, if you have an election, who wins? Hamas. The population has been radicalized.
Also, didn't Wolfowitz say in that Vanity Fair article that Bush had to use WMD's to garner support. Democracy and freedom talk wasn't going to get the public to go along with the war. Bush sold us mushrooms clouds and remote control airplanes spraying chemical weapons on American cities. This bullshit about freedom and democracy was used after the war started, when it was going badly and no WMD's were found. In addition, I guess Thurbis didn't see 60 minutes last weekend. When the CIA told Bush there was no active WMD programs. He forgot as well, that Hans Blix and the UN inspectors were in Iraq. It was the US that told them to leave, not Saddam. Finally, Bush was itching for a fight with Iraq before 9/11. He even talked in 1999 in New Hampshire about how important it was for him to be a war president and using the political capital gained through war to get his agenda pushed.
Oh yeah, as for Israel and the Palestinians, as long as Israel keeps stealing land in the West Bank and turning it into bantustans like South Africa, there will never be hopes for peace. As long as there remains an apartheid system targeted at Palestinians and such an uneven distribution of military force, Palestinians will continue to use terrorism. Just like Hosni Mubarak, our bastard in charge of Egypt said, if he was Palestinian he would be doing everything in his power to attack Israel. Israel can't expect to beat the dog shit out of Palestinians and give them no hope of a future and expect them to take it. A quick question though, how many UN resolutions are the Israelis in violation of?
Third, the Bush administration's actions on Darfur have been inconsistent. Colin Powell pushed for it to be declared a genocide in 2004 in hopes that would do something. It didn't. I certainly, applaud the fact that 85% of food aid to Darfur refugees is provided by the US, but there has been no diplomatic push by the Bush administration since Powell left. 400,000 people are dead. The Darfur rebels can't stop the Janjaweed raiders because of the Sudanese airforce provides cover. A squadron of NATO aircraft to set up a no-fly zone in Darfur and some logistical support to African Union troops would greatly improve the situation. That's a big difference from invading Iraq. Europe should be called on the carpet because their response is even more pathetic than the US', but we're the lone superpower and with great power comes great responsibilty.
So yes, I opposed the war in Iraq and support military intervention in Darfur. Does that make me inconsistent, perhaps to some, but lets remember the degree of lying, hypocrisy, and inconsistency of the Bush Administration.

thurbis said...

aaawwww, it's the "mission accomplished" story again! how touching.

"I also refer to it as "Mission Accomplished Day" in honor of the photo op that was planned better than the war. Just a tad premature. Three years after "Mission Accomplished", we've got almost half of the country under control."

Gee, "great minds" must think alike! I think the New York Times tried to make a similar point. . .back in 1945. It's funny how the more things change, the more they remain the same!

Per the New York Times:

"Germans Reveal Hate of Americans," October 31, 1945 - "The German attitude toward the American occupation forces has swung from apathy and surface friendliness to active dislike. According to a military government official, this is finding expression in the organization of numerous local anti-American organizations throughout the zone and in a rapid increase in the number of attacks on American soldiers. There were more such attacks in the first week of October than in the preceding five months of the occupation, this source declared."

"Loss of Victory in Germany Through U.S. Policy Feared," November 18, 1945 - "Loss of Victory in Germany Through U.S. Policy Feared," November 18, 1945 - "Grave concern was expressed today by informed officials that the United States might soon lose the fruits of victory in Germany through the failure to prepare adequately for carrying out its long-term commitments under the Potsdam Declaration."

I guess we forgot to plan for the peace in Germany after WWII, eh?

Then we have the predictable - "Of course, much happened between 1998 and 2003, like getting inspectors back into Iraq (Had Bush stopped at that, I would have to tip my hat to him). Instead, we called Hussein's WMD report incomplete simply because he didn't claim the weapons that he... You know, turned out not to have."

It was incomplete; even the UN weapons inspectors said so. The weapons that he "didn't claim" were the ones that Iraq once admitted having. It was logical to wonder, "gee, I wonder where the wmd that Iraq claimed to have...went".

Did you see the current issue of Foreign Affairs?

It makes for interesting reading:

Saddam's Delusions: The View From the Inside
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060501faessay85301/kevin-woods-james-lacey-williamson-murray/saddam-s-delusions-the-view-from-the-inside.html

I like the part that reads: "For many months after the fall of Baghdad, a number of senior Iraqi officials in coalition custody continued to believe it possible that Iraq still possessed a WMD capability hidden away somewhere (although they adamantly insisted that they had no direct knowledge of WMD programs). Coalition interviewers discovered that this belief was based on the fact that Iraq had possessed and used WMD in the past and might need them again; on the plausibility of secret, compartmentalized WMD programs existing given how the Iraqi regime worked; and on the fact that so many Western governments believed such programs existed."

Even high ranking Iraqi's were under the impression that Iraq had concealed WMD and the yet the President is supposed to know more than they do? I suggest you read the article in Forein Affairs; it supports a much more complex view that truly offers support for both your view, and the Presidents view. You can even called it "nuanced"!

Saddam Hussein has only Saddam Hussein for the problems of Saddam Hussein. You can't spend over a decade deceiving people and then, at the last minute, expect anyone to believe a word you are saying, even if you may be telling the truth.

President Bush had good reason to not trust a word from Saddam Hussein.

"In 1995, Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son-in-law, and the chief organizer of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, defected to Jordan. He revealed that Iraq was continuing to conceal weapons and missiles and the capacity to build many more. Then and only then did Iraq admit to developing numbers of weapons in significant quantities and weapon stocks. Previously, it had vehemently denied the very thing it just simply admitted once Saddam Hussein's son-in-law defected to Jordan and told the truth. Now listen to this, what did it admit? It admitted, among other things, an 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. And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production." President Bill Clinton / February 18, 1998

Yeah, that material may not have turned up, but George W. Bush wasn't the Lone Ranger, out there making up stuff about Iraq and wmd.

The fact is that Iraq did not explain what happened to any of the material it claimed to have; that pretty much was the crux of the biscuit (to put it in Frank Zappa lingo)

I do find it interesting that you use the exact same argument used by Saddam Hussein and Ramsey Clark (you know, Ramsey Clark, the head of the International Action Committee, the guy on Saddam Husseins defense team) to justify genocide: "What would happen to a group that takes up arms in an attempt to overthrow the US Government? They would be killed."

I doubt any American President would send helicopters over their villages and home towns and gas everyone to death, which was pretty much the modus operandi for Saddam Hussein.

I like this typical barb: "The Kurds? Yeah, there was a campaign to destroy the Kurds. Bush Sr and Ronald Reagan sent Don Rumsfeld to Iraq several times to make sure he didn't run out of chemicals."

Puh-leeze! Weren't the Russians and the French and a few other countries supplying this man with a lot of the weaponry he used? Can you name one specific weapon that Iraq had that was made in the United States?

Russia supplied most of the planes that we found in the Iraq air force. We didn't design those MiGs. The rest of the Iraqi air force came from France and China. Those weren't American Mirage F-1's, no those were French Mirage F-1s. The primary Iraqi missile was the Russian made Scud. Those Roland air defense systems? ask the French.

While it is true that we helped Saddam during the Iraq-Iran war, we gave them something far more valuable than planes trains and automobiles; we gave them satellite pics showing where the Iranians would attack next.

After 444 days of the Iranian hostage crisis, Iran wasn't exactly on our good side and, quite frankly, there is a lot of blame to go around and it's simply unfair (and I'm not even sure entirely accurate) to single out the United States, and Donald Rumsfeld by saying, "The Kurds? Yeah, there was a campaign to destroy the Kurds. Bush Sr and Ronald Reagan sent Don Rumsfeld to Iraq several times to make sure he didn't run out of chemicals."

I actually think the argument -more accurately presented - is that our government allowed the sale of helicopters to Iraq that could be converted for duel use purporses, and that those helicopters were used to spread chemical agents.

This is a far more accurate assesment:

Who armed Iraq?
http://web.amnesty.org/pages/ttt4-article_7-eng

Per Amnesty International: "In the shadow of the massive US-led military build-up against Iraq in late 2002 and early 2003, evidence emerged that all the permanent members of the UN Security Council, as well as several East European states and Syria, had supplied arms and related materials to the Iraqi government. . . . .Before the 1991 Gulf War, at least 20 countries were accused of involvement in building up the technological basis for different Iraqi weapons programs, in particular the chemical weapons program. In December 2002, the Iraqi government submitted a 12,000-page dossier to the UN naming companies from the UK, France, Russia, the USA and China as suppliers of weapons technology to Iraq."

At least we had the excuse of Saddam Hussein was fighting an avowed enemy that had just put Americans through 444 days of the Iranian hostage crisis in which, practically every day, we got cheery "death to America" videos from religous extremists parading American hostages around.

You state, "There are things floating in the sewer that have more substance than the arguments used to sell the American public on this war." Yawn. When you want to insult someone, please ask yourself What Would Harlan Ellison Do? He was a true master!

I respectfully disagree with your view about the sewer.

Now lets swing the debate back to the plight of those in Darfur.

For the record, politicians on both sides of the aisle have been concerned about this so it really isn't fair for each side to accuse the other of avoiding the issue.

To me, with many on both sides(left and right) agreeing that something needs to be done, wouldn't it be nice if we could agree to agree on this issue?

I'll post some "right wing" articles on this, and you post some "left wing" articles on this, and lets get past the name calling because we all agree that what's going on in Darfur needs to be addressed.

In fact, I would say that intervention in Darfur would be part of the larger war on terrorism since you do have Osama bin Laden calling for terrorists to make it their cause as well; and they don't intend to help the people who are suffering.


Activists to protest 'genocide' in Sudan
Bush, Kerry on record labeling atrocities as such
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39193
Per this article: "Participants will call on the United Nations Security Council to adopt sanctions on Sudan, suspend the membership of the government on the U. N. Human Rights Commission and enable victims of ethnic cleansing to return to their homes. As WorldNetDaily reported, world leaders have been unwilling to label the Sudanese government's atrocities "genocide," but the groups note that as supporters of the Sudan Peace Act of 2002, President Bush, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., and both houses of Congress have made that determination. . . .The Sudan Campaign, of which CSI is a part, calls on the Security Council of the United Nations to adopt Chapter 7 sanctions on Sudan, to suspend Sudan's membership on the U.N. Human Rights Commission, and to enable slaves and other victims of the Sudanese government's declared jihad against black Africans to return to their homes."

yeah, too bad the UN doesn't exactly do anything meaningful.

Group kicks off anti-slavery campaign
Pastors, humanitarians lobby Capitol for action in Sudan
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17888
Per this article: "Enslaved from the age of seven, Bok Bol will be joined at the kick-off by senior members of the congressional Black Caucus who are also on the campaign's advisory board, including Reps. Donald Payne, D-N.J., Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y. and Eleanor Holmes Norton, D-D.C. Other board members scheduled to attend the event include Sen. Sam
Brownback, R-Kan., Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va. and Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo."

(see, this is not a partisan issue; it is one we can all agree on. . .)

Civil disobedience
over Sudan slavery
Arrested activists object to presence of African-nation reps in New York (5/2/2001)
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=22659
From this aticle: "Four anti-slavery activists were arrested in Manhattan today in hopes of drawing attention to the continued government-sponsored slavery of black animists and Christians in Sudan. . . .The protest was organized by the American Anti-Slavery Group of Boston in response to slave raids on African villages. Some of the activists recently returned from a trip to South Sudan where they witnessed the redemption of 2,953 black slaves. . . .Today's arrests come just one day after a hearing on the trespassing charges against D.C. radio personality Joe Madison, former D.C. congressional delegate and Black Caucus founder Rev. Walter Fauntroy, and former Reagan administration official Michael Horowitz. The three men were arrested April 13 after they handcuffed themselves to the entrance of the Sudanese Embassy. The activists hope their arrests, combined with their choice of high-profile attorneys, will serve to further public awareness of their cause. Represented by none other than former Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr and Johnnie Cochran of O.J. Simpson fame, the group on May 15 will ask D.C. Superior Court Judge Anna Blackburne-Rigsby for a jury trial to be set prior to July, when drought conditions in Sudan are likely to worsen hunger."

You can write, "There are things floating in the sewer that have more substance than the arguments used to sell the American public on this war. And what's really sad is that you seem to be among the 32% that don't really care" all you want and it doesn't bother me one bit that I am one of the 32% of people who cared enough about removing a genocidal maniac named Saddam Hussein from power.

What you should be asking yourself, is why you're one of the 70% who is hell bent to impeach the President for removing from power a genocidal maniac, while simultaneously accusing him of ignoring genocide elsewhere.

The most intellectually consistent argument I've seen here is from the poster who doesn't want America to be the worlds policeman or engage in regime change. I may not agree with that but I respect the argument because it was consistent and intellectually honest.

I am curious to hear a rational argument on why you have no problem with genocide and mass graves in Iraq, why you think that there were more "things floating in the sewer that have more substance than the arguments used to sell the American public on this war" when, in fact, one of the arguments presented by the President from the outset was that Saddam Hussein was guilty a number of things, including (per the resolution passed by both houses of congress): "Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait; Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people"

thurbis said...

"So yes, I opposed the war in Iraq and support military intervention in Darfur. Does that make me inconsistent, perhaps to some, but lets remember the degree of lying, hypocrisy, and inconsistency of the Bush Administration."

Yes, I think that makes you inconsistent; but I'm sure you're a probably nice guy. Unless, of course, you're female, in which case you'd be probably a nice girl.

I didn't oppose President Clintons actions in Kosovo. There are some things that should transcend partisanship and I think that much of the "lying, hypocrisy, and inconsistency" is coming from those on the left such as International ANSWER, the Workers World Party and the International Action Committee rather than from the Bush administration.

When you have people closely associated with the Workers World Party (you know, thats the group that split off from the Socialist USA party in the 50's to support Soviet imperialism in Europe) accusing the United States of "imperialism" it is sort of, well, humorous.

Peaceniks: 50 years after Stalin’s death
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_8-3-2003_pg4_9

as noted: "The peace movement would merit the label only if it opposed all wars, including those waged by tyrants against their own people, not just those in which the US is involved. Did it march when Saddam Hussein invaded Iran? Not at all. Did it march when Saddam invaded Kuwait? Again: nix! Later, they marched, with the slogan: “No Blood for Oil”, when the US led coalition came to liberate Kuwait. Did it march when Saddam was gassing the Kurds to death? Oh, no."

Naturally, what day do these very same people pick to show their solidarity with illegal aliens?

May Day.

Freedonian said...

I guess we forgot to plan for the peace in Germany after WWII, eh?

Are you going to trot out Condi's ridiculous "Werewolves" story? We had a much easier time subduing the army that took over most of Europe than the Bush Leaguers have had with an army that fought Iran for the better part of a decade to a stalemate.

Obviously, one post-war was planned. The other consisted of an administration of Pollyannas walking around saying "We'll be greeted as liberators!" and "Six days, six weeks-- I doubt it will be six months.

It was logical to wonder, "gee, I wonder where the wmd that Iraq claimed to have...went".

A question that could have been answered by weapons inspectors with no bloodshed if Bush had the patience to see it through.

Look at it this way. The only stockpiles of illegal weapons found in Iraq were the al Sammoud missiles. Even those were only marginally illegal, as the ceasefire agreement allowed them to have weapons with a 150 km range. The al Sammouds had the fuel capacity to go 160 km, although they hadn't been fitted with guidance systems.

What happened to the al Sammouds? They were found and destroyed by the inspectors.

Even high ranking Iraqi's were under the impression that Iraq had concealed WMD and the yet the President is supposed to know more than they do?

That depends on whether ot not they've actually read the IAEA's report, wouldn't it?

"Most of the IAEA activities involving the destruction, removal and rendering harmless of the components of Iraq's nuclear weapons programme which to date have been revealed and destroyed, were completed by November 1992. Since that time, only a relatively small number of items of proscribed equipment and materials have been identified and disposed of, most of which were handed over to the IAEA by Iraq since the events of August 1995. "

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/nuke/iaea.htm

I suggest you read the article in Forein Affairs; it supports a much more complex view that truly offers support for both your view, and the Presidents view. You can even called it "nuanced"!

My subscription must have run out. I didn't even realize there was a new one yet. I'll pick it up.

But if it's "nuanced", I know who WON'T be reading it. A certain unnamed president who doesn't believe in policy that can't be summed up in the space allotted for a bumper sticker.

Saddam Hussein has only Saddam Hussein for the problems of Saddam Hussein. You can't spend over a decade deceiving people and then, at the last minute, expect anyone to believe a word you are saying, even if you may be telling the truth.

Those are quite ironic words, coming from a Bush supporter.

You're saying that in defense of a guy who put the "sixteen words" in the 2003 SOTU address just three months after the CIA made him cut it from his 10/7/02 speech in Ohio because it was bullshit. When his underlings outed a CIA officer in an attempt to stifle dissent, he lied again and claimed not to know who did it.

He lied about what was in IAEA reports. He lied about the amount of weapons that the UN said Iraq had. And although he was quite careful never to say "Saddam was in on 9/11", he gave one speech (The aforementioned 10/7/02 speech in Ohio--- Look it up on the WH website) where he mentioned Iraq and 9/11 in the same sentence well over forty times.

So don't even try to lecture me about why we shouldn't trust people who deceive us. Just start listening to your own advice.

Yeah, that material may not have turned up, but George W. Bush wasn't the Lone Ranger, out there making up stuff about Iraq and wmd.


No. He was just the only one that decided that halfcocked information was worth launching a full scale invasion over.

Can you name one specific weapon that Iraq had that was made in the United States?

You mean like cluster bombs and chemical weapons precursors?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A52241-2002Dec29

Ah, but you knew that already. Why else parse the phrase with "made in the US"? They were moved to Hussein through third parties.

Yawn. When you want to insult someone, please ask yourself What Would Harlan Ellison Do? He was a true master!


Well, I have to agree there. I still recall quite fondly an episode of "Politically Incorrect" where he called Rush Limbaugh a "pustulent sack of monkey nuts".

Nice to find another Ellison reader, BTW. There are nowhere near as many of us as there should be.

Ever read any Joe R. Lansdale?

For the record, politicians on both sides of the aisle have been concerned about this so it really isn't fair for each side to accuse the other of avoiding the issue.


It's not? Which side has almost unchecked power now? If there was the political will from the right to help these people, this massacre would be described in past tense.

The people I hear talking about this the most are the ones whose bills get spiked in committee.

I'll post some "right wing" articles on this, and you post some "left wing" articles on this, and lets get past the name calling because we all agree that what's going on in Darfur needs to be addressed.

I don't know that more articles are even needed, unless they're in the mainstream media. Everyone who's read something here knows something needs to be done.

But I agree with you--- I'll lobby the Democrats, you lobby the Republicans. Afterwards, we'll compare notes and see who had the easiest job.

polar donkey said...

Thurbis, I'm glab you supported Clinton and NATO's intervention in Kosvo. There are some similarities between Kosovo and Darfur. But I'll quickly touch on some things you brought up.

First, there is a big difference between Germany post April 1945 and Iraq. So much in fact that it isn't even worth mentioning except for this one fact. There was no active insurgency blowing up 2,400 American troops and three way civil war that took place in Germany after WWII.

Second,what makes Iraq and Darfur so different? There is a genocide going on right this minute in Darfur that is destablizing its neighbors. In Kosovo, there was an ethnic cleansing campaign that was destabilizing Macedonia and Albania. The US government has recognized this genocide in Darfur. There are mass graves in Iraq, but in March 2003 did George Bush say there is an active genocide or even ethnic cleansing campaign occuring in Iraq. No. It was WMD's and bullshit lies about Saddam/Al-Qeada connection. After everything we've learned about the lead up to Iraq how is this statement made 3 years ago today not be complete bullshit.
"The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We have removed an ally of Al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding.

And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because that regime is no more.

In these 19 months that changed the world, our actions have been focused, and deliberate, and proportionate to the offense. We have not forgotten the victims of September 11th -- the last phone calls, the cold murder of children, the searches in the rubble. With those attacks, the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States. And war is what they got." Bush

Third,if we should be invading countries for past genocides and atrocites, how far back should we go. Let's go kick some Indonesian ass because they beat up on east Timor and many of those generals are still alive and haven't been brought to justice. Argentina and the Junta? The French in Algeria? Turkey and Armenians? How about we look at ourselves? The US in the Phillipines, the US and American indians. Hey how about the American South and black people up until the 1960's.
There are plenty of ongoing atrocities as well. How about Robert Mugabe, lets go take him out. What about Liberia, all we did was float an aircraft carrier off the coast during those atrocities. Sierra Leone? You mentioned the Congo. I remember distinct silence even today about Congo. North Korea, Chechneya, half the Stans in central Asia, China, Burma, Colombia. Damn that's a lot of places that we didn't and still don't give two shits about. But no we chose to take out Saddam and ignore all the rest. That's what makes everyone else doubt American sincerity.

Fourth, as for ANSWER and communist boogey men groups, please. Are you really worried that communism is going to return? I'm sure you may have something that you have in common with David Duke, but no one is calling you a neo-nazi white supremecist. Sometimes, even a good capitalist may just be for peace or recognize a disasterous strategy. Is the use of term American imperialism really freaking you out that much too? The word imperialism was around long before communism. Are you saying the United States government has not done bad things and isn't a neo-colonial power? Mark Twain once wrote something that was too radical to be published in response to the US occupation of the Philipines. Twain called US actions imperialism and he wasn't even a communist. Check out what he wrote, it's pretty good.
http://www.libertystory.net/LSDOCTWAINWARPRAYER.htm
Mark Twain wasn't a communist, he was just a smart guy that saw through all the ideological bullshit.

But here's the fundamental problem. No one is lying when they say there is a genocide and ethnic cleansing campaign occuring in Darfur and that some military action should be taken to stop it. Saddam was a bad guy that slaughtered Kurds and Shites, but was it actually genocide or him just being one evil fuck. Bush said it was WMD's even though he knew there wasn't an active WMD program and that Iraq was not a threat to the US. There was also no active genocide or ethnic cleansing campaign happening in Iraq. Also Iraq was no threat to it's neighbors, Colin Powell said so in 2001. We were told we would be greeted with sweets and flowers. We were told the war would be paid for by Iraqi oil. We were told US soldiers would be out in 6 months. We have been told over and over again we have turned a corner. None of things were true and everyone knows he is a liar that has changed justifications for the war. It's hard for some people to believe that an American president was looking to start a war and lied about the reasons in order to advance his political agenda. Now its all gone to hell and the lies and corruption are everywhere to be seen. This is why people are calling for Bush's impeachment.

I suggest Thurbis, that you also support impeachment. Blame everything wrong with Iraq on Bush's lies and his perversion of the neocon ideology. That is the only way to save neoconism. Hell, Bill Kristol already is trying to throw Bush under the bus to save his beloved neocon ideology.

thurbis said...

Thank you both for your substantive remarks! I truly do appreciate it because debating is a lot more enjoyable than insulting each other.

I'm not even sure where to start! I'll make a post for Freedonian, than one for ole Polar Donkey.

First, Freedonian, I'm not going to trot out the werewolf story (although I have watched the 1941 classic The Wolf Man several times lately. . .the earlier 1935 "Werewolf of London" is interesting in that the werewolf was soooo polite; they usually don't thank you for shooting them but that werewolf, well, he had manners!)

When I pointed out that many of the WMD claims were based on what Iraq admitted having and that the real question was "where did it go?" you - not unfairly - pointed out that it was "A question that could have been answered by weapons inspectors with no bloodshed if Bush had the patience to see it through."

The UN passed UN resolution 1441 in November 2002, finding Iraq to be in material breach of over a decade of UN sanctions. The resolution gave Iraq 30 days to totally co-operate or face "serious consequences".

When Hans Blix gave a report on January 27, 2003, he did say that Iraq was co-operating, stating that "Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC in this field."

But then came the caveats...the buts, and I ain't talking the Butt Sisters! You can find the entire presentation at -

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm

Per Blix: "Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC in this field. . .In this updating I am bound, however, to register some problems. . .While we now have the technical capability to send a U-2 plane placed at our disposal for aerial imagery and for surveillance during inspections and have informed Iraq that we planned to do so, Iraq has refused to guarantee its safety, unless a number of conditions are fulfilled."

Well, there goes that unconditional cooperation right out the window! "Sure we'll cooperate but we may shoot down your planes" is not cooperating.

Then Hans Blix went on to make these claims - "I am obliged to note some recent disturbing incidents and harassment. . .On a number of occasions, demonstrations have taken place in front of our offices and at inspection sites. . . Demonstrations and outbursts of this kind are unlikely to occur in Iraq without initiative or encouragement from the authorities. We must ask ourselves what the motives may be for these events. They do not facilitate an already difficult job"

Sooo, Husseins idea of cooperating was to not promise to not shoot down planes helping the UN, and demonstrations and outburts that harassed UN weapons inspectors.

At what point do we say, "enough is enough?"

On December 16, 1998 President Clinton came to a conclusion I agreed with then, and that I agree with now: "The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people."

There's a lot in that Blix report to ponder aside from issues of whether or not Iraq was cooperating; such as the 1,000 tons of VX nerve agent of which Blix said, "In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for."

In response to the fact that "Even high ranking Iraqi's were under the impression that Iraq had concealed WMD and the yet the President is supposed to know more than they do?" you answered, "That depends on whether ot not they've actually read the IAEA's report, wouldn't it?"

What strikes me as curious about this is that these very Iraqi officials were under the impression that Iraq had concealed WMD; they know what they told the IAEA in 1995 and yet, even after regime change, they were pretty sure that Iraq had WMD.

You can find the Foreign Affairs article at -

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060501faessay85301/kevin-woods-james-lacey-williamson-murray/saddam-s-delusions-the-view-from-the-inside.html

In a summary of the article, it is pointed out that: "The great mystery of the 2003 war in Iraq - "What about the WMD?" has finally been resolved. The short answer is: Saddam Hussein’s persistent record of lying meant no one believed him when he at the last moment actually removed the weapons of mass destruction. . . .. .Saddam's belated attempts at transparency backfired, leading to what the report authors call "a diplomatic and propaganda Catch-22." Monumental confusion followed. Captured senior Iraqi officials continued for many months after the 2003 war "to believe it possible

… that Iraq still possessed a WMD capability hidden away somewhere." Coalition intelligence agencies, not surprisingly, missed the final and unexpected twist in a long-running drama. Neither those agencies nor Western politicians lied; Saddam was the evil impostor whose deceptions in the end confused and endangered everyone, including himself."

As for the "16 words in the state of the union address", the fact is that we did not go to war based solely on those 16 words, and Joe Wilson was proven to have been the one doing more than a little misleading. It would seem that after years of failure, the CIA's only successful undercover mission has been in discrediting the current administration. I'm glad Porter Goss is cleaning house.

So you're an Ellison fan too, eh? I've always liked the guy. I like his non-fiction more than his fiction...but, heck, I like his fiction too.

"Nice to find another Ellison reader, BTW. There are nowhere near as many of us as there should be." Freedonian

Ain't that the truth! I think he's probably one of the greatest writers to write. Oh, I don't always agree with him, but that man knows how to put words onto paper. I haven't read any Joe R. Lansdale but, since you recommend him, I'll see what I can find.

You write, " I'll lobby the Democrats, you lobby the Republicans. Afterwards, we'll compare notes and see who had the easiest job."

Personally, I'd like to see some term limits in Congress. I'm sick of them all. I support the President, but I find just as many Republicans annoying as I do Democrats who annoy me...and Libertarians? Well, I agree with them on some issues, but certainly not on National Defense or the proverbial "safety net" issues. Although I did crack up laughing when - during a debate on c-span - a libertarian said that spending money on Medicare was like "throwing money down a rathole"; somehow, I don't think he won that election!

thurbis said...

An excellent response! Thank you very much; it's nice to have some arguments to respond to rather than just the name calling!

You write, ". ..what makes Iraq and Darfur so different? There is a genocide going on right this minute in Darfur that is destablizing its neighbors. In Kosovo, there was an ethnic cleansing campaign that was destabilizing Macedonia and Albania. The US government has recognized this genocide in Darfur." Okay, on that we do agree.

you write, "There are mass graves in Iraq, but in March 2003 did George Bush say there is an active genocide or even ethnic cleansing campaign occuring in Iraq. No. It was WMD's and bullshit lies about Saddam/Al-Qeada connection. After everything we've learned about the lead up to Iraq how is this statement made 3 years ago today not be complete bullshit."

Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism, and it did have ties to Al Qaeda.

If you take a gander at the 1998 indictment the United States District Court /Southern District of New York got on bin Laden you find things like:

". . . .the indictment states that Al Qaeda reached an agreement
with Iraq not to work against the regime of Saddam Hussein and that
they would work cooperatively with Iraq, particularly in weapons
development. . .In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of
Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on
particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al
Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq."

Remember Richard Clarke? He bashed the President Bush, so ya gotta believe ole Clarke, right?

In his book - that he was practically hawking at the 9/11 commission - he wrote: ""EMPTA is a compound that had been used as a prime ingredient in Iraqi nerve gas. ..It has no other known use, nor had any other nation employed EMPTA to our knowledge for any purpose. . .What was an Iraqi chemical weapons agent doing in Sudan? ...UNSCOM and other U.S. government sources had claimed that the Iraqis were working on something at a facility near Shifa. Could Sudan, using bin Laden's money, have hired some Iraqis to make chemical weapons? It seemed chillingly possible."

Yeah, after 9/11 we didn't quite know what to make of any of this, yet that didn't stop people from accusing the President of "not connecting the dots" in order to prevent 9/11.

The 9/11 commission said that the failure to stop 9/11 was due to something like a "failure of imagination". The President "imagined" what would happen if Iraq managed to provide one of the known terrorist groups with some sort of WMD, and viola! He decided that Bill Clinton was right in 1998 when President Clinton said, "The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.
The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government."

Bin Laden wasn't singled out as the only recipient of our attention after 9/11. On September 20, 2001, President Bush was pretty upfront when he stated:

"Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated. . . .Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." President Bush /September 20, 2001

Note that the President didn't say that the War on Terrorism only applied to Al Qaeda; what the President clearly stated was "Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated"

Now it is logical for you to ask, "if we should be invading countries for past genocides and atrocites, how far back should we go?", and I did find it humorous that you would ask: "How about we look at ourselves? The US in the Phillipines, the US and American indians. Hey how about the American South and black people up until the 1960's."

Yeah, I guess that you could make the argument that the Democratic Party has a lot of explaining to do!

Black support for Bush drops to 2 percent
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47449
As Larry Elder notes, "Ku Klux Klan? In 1872 congressional investigations, Democrats admitted beginning the Klan as an effort to stop the spread of the Republican Party and to re-establish Democratic control in Southern states. As PBS' "American Experience" notes, "In outright defiance of the Republican-led federal government, Southern Democrats formed organizations that violently intimidated blacks and Republicans who tried to win political power. The most prominent of these, the Ku Klux Klan, was formed in Pulaski, Tenn., in 1865." Blacks, who were all Republican at that time, became the primary targets of violence."

Yeah, as far as I can tell the Democratic Party was on the wrong side of the important major issues during the Civil War as well!

In all fairness, however, I do realize that there is/was a difference between the later "progressives" in the Democratic Party and the good ole boy yahoo wing of the southern Democratic Party, but the left routinely accuses Republicans of being backwoods racists, so I like to point out that the history of the Democratic Party isn't exactly sterling.

You write (and not unfairly): "There are plenty of ongoing atrocities as well. How about Robert Mugabe, lets go take him out. What about Liberia, all we did was float an aircraft carrier off the coast during those atrocities. Sierra Leone? You mentioned the Congo. I remember distinct silence even today about Congo. North Korea, Chechneya, half the Stans in central Asia, China, Burma, Colombia. Damn that's a lot of places that we didn't and still don't give two shits about. But no we chose to take out Saddam and ignore all the rest. That's what makes everyone else doubt American sincerity."

Soooo, would you support the President if he announced that he would take all of these on at once?

Iraq was what I would call "low hanging fruit ripe for the picking".

Why? Well, it was in material breach of over a decade of UN Resolutions and in direct violation of the terms and conditions established in the cease fire that left Saddam Hussein in control after the first Gulf War. It was clearly the next target in any meaningful war on terrorism because it had - for whatever goofy reasons it had - defied UN resolutions relative to wmd year after year after year.

The case that Iraq was a danger to the stability to the world was made long before George W. Bush was elected.

President Clinton put it this way: "Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons. . .The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again. . .Iraq has abused its final chance. . .This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance.. . .The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government." President Clinton / December 16, 1998

I'm not sure if admitting that President Clinton said all of that but "was too smart to do anything about it" is a real good argument for your side!

Stick with my argument on this: Without 9/11, President Clinton would not have gotten any support- except from Donald Rumsfeld and those whacky neocons - from those who would have accused him of wagging the dog. Irresponsible partisans would have been all over President Clinton in the same way that irresponsible partisans are all over President Bush.

You do realize that WMD was not the only thing cited relative to regime change in Iraq, right?

"The Authorization for the Use of Force in Iraq that President Bush did seek and obtain in October 2002 has a total of 23 clauses. These 23 clauses spell out the rationale for the war. Out of all 23 clauses, there are only two that even mention stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. If this was the principal argument for the war, the resolution surely didn’t make much of it. What the resolution did stress – in twelve separate clauses – were 16 UN resolutions that that Saddam had ignored or defied." David Horrowitz

You ask: "as for ANSWER and communist boogey men groups, please. Are you really worried that communism is going to return?"

Hhhhmmmm, did you take a gander at todays big May Day celebrations?

Mother Jones is a pretty lefty magazine, right?

Who Will Lead?
http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/gitlin/2002/10/we_175_01.html

Per Mother Jones: "Now, those same cynics of the hard left have moved to the front of the current anti-war movement. The sponsors of what's being billed as a national anti-war demonstration in Washington on October 26, and their eminence grise, Ramsey Clark, express no displeasure with Saddam Hussein. Their world is two-toned and, as with the Old Left at its worst, it's always clear who's wearing the black hats. (Ramsey Clark belongs to the International Committee to Defend Slobodan Milosevic, after all.) This will not play in Peoria. It does not deserve to play in Washington."

Ramsey Clark, a man who has been calling for the impeachment of the President is the head of the International Action Committee; every read their web site? I read all the far lefts web sites;it makes for interesting reading.

Ramsey Clark is a long time supporter of Saddam Hussein and he also serves today on Saddam Husseins legal team.

Is it any surprise that one of Saddam Husseins lawyers would be demanding the impeachment of the President of the United States? What is so suprising is that so many people echo exactly what this guy and the people affiliated with him have been peddling for quite some time. . .apparently without realizing it.

Ramsey Clark has a long and rather strange history. Salon isn't right wing is it?

Ramsey Clark, the war criminal's best friend
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/06/21/clark/

Per Salon: "Many former friends, more in sorrow than in anger, trace his present positions to the company he keeps: the International Action Center, which proclaims him its founder but seems entirely in the thrall of an obscure Trotskyist sect, the Workers World Party. Whoever writes his scripts, there is little doubt what Ramsey Clark is against now -- any manifestation of the power of the state he once served at the height of the Vietnam War."

These far leftists do exist. By the way, ole Lou Dobbs has never really liked President Bush has he?

Dobbs: Radical groups taking control of immigrant movement
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/01/dobbs.immigrantprotests/index.html

Per ole Lou Dobbs: "Most of the mainstream media has been absolutely co-opted by the open borders and illegal immigration advocates. I'm not opposed to demonstrations and protests of any kind, even by those who are not citizens of this country, because one way or another, demonstrations and protests enrich and invigorate the national debate and raise the public consciousness of truth.
But only one newspaper, to its credit, reported that illegal aliens and their supporters' boycott of the national economy on the First of May is clear evidence that radical elements have seized control of the movement. The Washington Post, alone among national papers, reported that ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism) has become an active promoter of the national boycott. . . . . Just how significant is the impact of leftists within the illegal immigration movement? It is no accident that they chose May 1 as their day of demonstration and boycott. It is the worldwide day of commemorative demonstrations by various socialist, communist, and even anarchic organizations."

You write, "Is the use of term American imperialism really freaking you out that much too?"

No, I just find it interesting that it is being used by a marxist group that was formed specifically to support Soviet imperialism.

Can you name for me one other nation - besides the United States - that was attacked, defeated its enemies, rebuilt their nations and then gave them back? I guess that's imperialism pax american style.

Remember the protests in Tianamen Square? Remember the picture of that one person standing before a line of tanks? The very people in the "communist boogey men groups" you ignore were on the side of the guys driving the tanks; they are not committed to peace or freedom and if they were truly "anti-war" they would be against all wars and not so selective in their outrage.

You write, "Are you saying the United States government has not done bad things and isn't a neo-colonial power?"

No, I am not saying that at all. America has not always lived up to the ideals espoused in the Constitution or the Bill of rights, and I am all for criticism when America deserves criticism; what I find questionable are all of those who criticize only the United States of America.

Decades ago, Canada's Gordon Sinclair made some comments on the United States. I won't post the whole article here but I will provide a link in case anyone would like to read it.
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/g/gordonsinclair.htm

I will quote some of it: "As long as sixty years ago, when I first started to read newspapers, I read of floods on the Yellow River and the Yangtse. Who rushed in with men and money to help? The Americans did. They have helped control floods on the Nile, the Amazon, the Ganges and the Niger. Today, the rich bottom land of the Misssissippi is under water and no foreign land has sent a dollar to help. Germany, Japan and, to a lesser extent, Britain and Italy, were lifted out of the debris of war by the Americans who poured in billions of dollars and forgave other billions in debts. None of those countries is today paying even the interest on its remaining debts to the United States. When the franc was in danger of collapsing in 1956, it was the Americans who propped it up and their reward was to be insulted and swindled on the streets of Paris. I was there. I saw it. When distant cities are hit by earthquakes, it is the United States that hurries into help... Managua Nicaragua is one of the most recent examples. So far this spring, 59 American communities have been flattened by tornadoes. Nobody has helped. The Marshall Plan .. the Truman Policy .. all pumped billions upon billions of dollars into discouraged countries. . . .I can name to you 5,000 times when the Americans raced to the help of other people in trouble. Can you name me even one time when someone else raced to the Americans in trouble?"

You write: "No one is lying when they say there is a genocide and ethnic cleansing campaign occuring in Darfur and that some military action should be taken to stop it. Saddam was a bad guy that slaughtered Kurds and Shites, but was it actually genocide or him just being one evil fuck. Bush said it was WMD's even though he knew there wasn't an active WMD program and that Iraq was not a threat to the US . .There was also no active genocide or ethnic cleansing campaign happening in Iraq. Also Iraq was no threat to it's neighbors, Colin Powell said so in 2001."

Well, I respectfully have to disagree with ya, ole Donkey; a lot of things were said about Iraq and if you only heard WMD, you weren't listening very hard.

"The Authorization for the Use of Force in Iraq that President Bush did seek and obtain in October 2002 has a total of 23 clauses. These 23 clauses spell out the rationale for the war. Out of all 23 clauses, there are only two that even mention stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. If this was the principal argument for the war, the resolution surely didn’t make much of it. What the resolution did stress – in twelve separate clauses – were 16 UN resolutions that that Saddam had ignored or defied." David Horrowitz

As far back as the 2002 State of the Union address President Bush was explaining a pretty far reaching strategy of addressing the root causes of terrorism, and WMD was but one of the many things he menioned.

The President said, "All fathers and mothers, in all societies, want their children to be educated, and live ree from poverty and violence. No people on Earth yearn to be oppressed, or aspire to servitude, or eagerly await the midnight knock of the secret police. If anyone doubts this, let them look to Afghanistan, where the Islamic "street" greeted the fall of tyranny with song and celebration. Let the skeptics look to Islam's own rich history, with its centuries of learning, and tolerance and progress. America will lead by defending liberty and justice because they are right and true and unchanging for all people everywhere. No nation owns these aspirations, and no nation is exempt from them. We have no intention of imposing our culture. But America will always stand firm for the non-negotiable demands of human dignity: the rule of law; limits on the power of the state; respect for women; private property; free speech; equal justice; and religious tolerance. America will take the side of brave men and women who advocate these values around the world, including the Islamic world, because we have a greater objective than eliminating threats and containing resentment. We seek a just and peaceful world beyond the war on terror."

You write, "We were told we would be greeted with sweets and flowers. We were told the war would be paid for by Iraqi oil. We were told US soldiers would be out in 6 months. We have been told over and over again we have turned a corner. None of things were true and everyone knows he is a liar that has changed justifications for the war."

Do you read the New York Times?

Per the New York Times, "Saddam Hussein's rule collapsed in a matter of hours today across much of this capital city as ordinary Iraqis took to the streets in their thousands to topple Mr. Hussein's statues, loot government ministries and interrogation centers and to give a cheering, often tearful welcome to advancing American troops. ... Army and Marine Corps units moving into the districts of eastern Baghdad where many of the city's 5 million people live finally met the kind of adulation from ordinary Iraqis that American advocates of a war to topple Mr. Hussein had predicted ... Much of Baghdad became, in a moment, a showcase of unbridled enthusiasm for America ... American troops, but almost as much any Westerner caught up in the tide of people rushing into the streets, were met with scenes that summoned comparisons to the freeing of Eastern Europe 14 years ago ... Shouts to the American soldiers of "Thank you, mister, thank you," in English, of "Welcome, my friend, welcome," of "Good, good, good," and "Yes, yes, mister,' mingled with cries of "Good, George Bush!" and "Down Saddam!" ... A middle-aged man pushed through a crowd attempting to topple a statue of Mr. Hussein outside the oil ministry with a bouquet of paper flowers, and passed among American troops distributing them one at a time, each with a kiss on the cheek. A woman with two small children perched in the open roof of a car maneuvering to get close to a Marine Corps unit assisting in toppling a Hussein statue outside the Palestine and Sheraton hotels, the quarters for foreign journalists, wept as she shouted, "Thank you, mister, thank you very much." April 10, 2003, John F. Burns

It's truly sad that people like Ramsey Clark - a "peace activist" on Saddam Husseins defense team - have managed to turn all this goodwill around with a nonstop campaign of Bush hatred that a lot of people buy into without bothering to "consider the source".

You write: "It's hard for some people to believe that an American president was looking to start a war and lied about the reasons in order to advance his political agenda. Now its all gone to hell and the lies and corruption are everywhere to be seen. This is why people are calling for Bush's impeachment."

Except, the lies I see are from people such as Joe Wilson, the man who really got the ball rolling on the "Bush lied, soldiers died" mantra with his July 6 op-ed in the New York Times in which he stated that the President essentially twisted and lied about pre-war intel.

As it turns out, Joe Wilson was the one not telling the truth.
Joe Wilson and yellowcake? Per an editorial in the Washington Post, "Mr. Wilson was the one guilty of twisting the truth. In fact, his report [to the CIA] supported the conclusion that Iraq had sought uranium. . . .President Bush was right to approve the declassification of parts of a National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq three years ago in order to make clear why he had believed that Saddam Hussein was seeking nuclear weapons"

An editorial in the Wall Street Journal put it this way: "In short, Joe Wilson hadn't told the truth about what he'd discovered in Africa, how he'd discovered it, what he'd told the CIA about it, or even why he was sent on the mission. The media and the Kerry campaign promptly abandoned him, though the former never did give as much prominence to his debunking as they did to his original accusations. But if anyone can remember another public figure so entirely and thoroughly discredited, let us know."

Per the Washington Post article on the Senate Intelligence Committee hearings on the Presidents claim regarding information from British intelligence indicated that Iraq was seeking uranium in Africa, we get this commentary on Joe Wilson:

"The report also said Wilson provided misleading information to The Washington Post last June. He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on documents that had clearly been forged because "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong."
"Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the 'dates were wrong and the names were wrong' when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports," the Senate panel said. Wilson told the panel he may have been confused and may have "misspoken" to reporters. The documents -- purported sales agreements between Niger and Iraq -- were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger."

The above are not "small insignificant points"; this is the shaky bedrock on which much of the "Bush Lied and Soldiers Died" distortions spring from. Where does the President go to get his reputation back after being slandered by the likes of Joe Wilson, Ramsey Clark and Saddam Hussein?

Regime change in Iraq was not only predicated on Iraq being in material breach of over a decade of UN resolutions relative to WMD and its state sponsorship of terrorism, but also due to the fact that it was in blatant violation of the terms and conditions it agreed to abide by in the cease fire signed at the end of the first Gulf War. At the very least, Iraq fired at British and American war planes patrolling the no-fly zones not once, not twice but hundreds of time; each one of those times constituted a breach of the conditions of the cesase fire.

You write, "I suggest Thurbis, that you also support impeachment. Blame everything wrong with Iraq on Bush's lies and his perversion of the neocon ideology. That is the only way to save neoconism. Hell, Bill Kristol already is trying to throw Bush under the bus to save his beloved neocon ideology."

Well, it ain't gonna happen Mr. Donkey! I have sincere reasons for believing what I believe, and we could debate this point by point all you like.

Regime change in Iraq was part of the larger war on terror in much the way defeating Germany in World War II was part of World War II even though the Germans didn't bomb us at Pearl Harbor. The only person who Saddam Hussein can blame for the problems of Saddam Hussein is Saddam Hussein.

I suggest you carefully read the article in the current addition of Foreign Affairs about Iraq and WMD. It provides good info that both sides of this debate can take to heart.

Saddam's Delusions: The View From the Inside
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060501faessay85301/kevin-woods-james-lacey-williamson-murray/saddam-s-delusions-the-view-from-the-inside.html

It's interesting to note that -after the war - even high ranking Iraqi officials were under the distinct impression that Iraq still had WMD; I'd say that there is more than enough information to show that the President made the only decision he could have made under the circumstances.

Freedonian said...

Thank you both for your substantive remarks! I truly do appreciate it because debating is a lot more enjoyable than insulting each other.

Thank you too. Political discussion should never be about being the monkey that flung the most poo.

First, Freedonian, I'm not going to trot out the werewolf story (although I have watched the 1941 classic The Wolf Man several times lately. . .the earlier 1935 "Werewolf of London" is interesting in that the werewolf was soooo polite; they usually don't thank you for shooting them but that werewolf, well, he had manners!)

As I understand it, he was always mindful to turn up his pinky claw while feeding.

Sooo, Husseins idea of cooperating was to not promise to not shoot down planes helping the UN, and demonstrations and outburts that harassed UN weapons inspectors.

At what point do we say, "enough is enough?"


Hopefully, before Lucy and Ethel come up with some hare-brained scheme involving painting US planes to look like UN planes in the hope that he'll shoot one down.

On December 16, 1998 President Clinton came to a conclusion I agreed with then, and that I agree with now: "The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people."

Haven't we learned by now that there is, in fact, at least one thing worse than having Saddam in charge?

Before the war: Hussein killed religious extremists before their movement could find a foothold. The only thing close to an AQ-related group operating in pre-war Iraq was Ansar al Islam, which operated out of the Kurdish territories and lashed out at everyone, including Saddam.

After the war: Al Qaeda has not only been given a fertile recruiting ground, but a western base of operations, and a place to practice killing Americans.

Before the war: Hussein was a tyrant, but a tyrant that the Iraqi people had learned to live with. They weren't just randomly mowed down on the streets.

After the war: Not a man, woman, or child is safe in Iraq. Their best and brightest are leaving the country in convoys because if they don't get blown up by one side or the other, they get kidnapped and held for exorbitant ransom.

Before the war: No WMDs.

After the war: Still no WMDs.

Before the war: Women were able to live a more westernized life than anywhere else in the Middle East. No headscarves. No burqas. They were allowed to leave the house without a male relative.

After the war: Cosmetic progress--- There are female members of Parliament now. The bad news is that the male members refuse to recognize them. The rest of the women live under a slightly milder form of Sharia than the Taliban had instituted in Afghanistan.

What strikes me as curious about this is that these very Iraqi officials were under the impression that Iraq had concealed WMD; they know what they told the IAEA in 1995 and yet, even after regime change, they were pretty sure that Iraq had WMD.

That argument might be valid-- Had we relied on them for our information. Instead, the Bush White House somehow decided that an Iraqi exile that had been setting up bank scams in Jordan for forty years was a reliable source on Iraqi weapons programs.

I know that embezzlers are the kind of company Bush is accustomed to keeping, but I doubt an enemy of ours would turn to Ken Lay for information on OUR weapons programs.

In a summary of the article, it is pointed out that: "The great mystery of the 2003 war in Iraq - "What about the WMD?" has finally been resolved. The short answer is: Saddam Hussein’s persistent record of lying meant no one believed him when he at the last moment actually removed the weapons of mass destruction. . . .. .Saddam's belated attempts at transparency backfired, leading to what the report authors call "a diplomatic and propaganda Catch-22." Monumental confusion followed. Captured senior Iraqi officials continued for many months after the 2003 war "to believe it possible

That's already highly flawed logic. Had any weapons removal plans been going on "at the last minute", we surely would have noticed. It's not like we have no eyes in the sky.

They had been removed well before. I'll read the article, but what you've brought here of it sounds like an effort to whitewash the whole thing. If you're going to commit troops to war, you better damn well know what you're going into. There should be no surprises, be it the existence of something or the nonexistence of something.

Clinton suspected Saddam had WMD, but he didn't go in. He didn't feel like he had enough information. Turns out it was a wise move. He didn't make a Mess'o'Potamia and get over 2000 soldiers killed taking out a paper tiger.

As for the "16 words in the state of the union address", the fact is that we did not go to war based solely on those 16 words, and Joe Wilson was proven to have been the one doing more than a little misleading. It would seem that after years of failure, the CIA's only successful undercover mission has been in discrediting the current administration. I'm glad Porter Goss is cleaning house.

Joe Wilson didn't mislead anyone. His wife worked at a brass plate company--- A company founded by the CIA for the sole purpose of monitoring energy transfers in the Middle East to look out for WMD. In an act of political caprice, the White House destroyed Jennings Bryant when they outed her, burning every agent that worked there, burning every contact they made.

There's usually a damage assessment made available to Congress every time there's an intel screwup. There won't be one this time--- They don't want anyone knowing just how badly they screwed up this nation's intel to achieve a political objective.

Ain't that the truth! I think he's probably one of the greatest writers to write. Oh, I don't always agree with him, but that man knows how to put words onto paper. I haven't read any Joe R. Lansdale but, since you recommend him, I'll see what I can find.

Ellison and Lansdale are masters and friends. Lansdale has a style that's crime noir meets Mark Twain when he's doing one of his mystery novels. His short stories, which I prefer, are more like Mark Twain after drinking absinthe. If this gives you a preview of his imagination, the horror/ comedy "Bubba Ho-Tep" was based on one of his stories. If you're not familiar with it, the real Elvis is in a nursing home with the black man that JFK's missing brain was implanted into, and they have to team up to stop a mummy that's killing the residents.

Ellison's "The Glass Teat" is the standard by which I judge all essays.

Personally, I'd like to see some term limits in Congress.

I disagree with term limits in all forms. There's something to be said for the logic behind them, but to me, it boils down to this: As much as I dislike George W. Bush, if this country could get duped into voting for him a third time, they would deserve whatever happens next.

I know this part wasn't addressed to me, but I feel the need to talk about it anyway. You talk about how Democrats were always on the wrong side of race issues before the Civil Rights Movement--- That is absolutely true.

But we both know there was a role reversal in 1964. That was the year Barry Goldwater got the GOP nomination. He decided on a strategy that has been used, more or less, in every presidential campaign since then.

It was the dawning of the Southern Strategy--- Convince unhappy white voters that equal rights for all was really "special privilege for black people" and rally the angry white vote to their own base.

Every Republican candidate since then has made a campaign stop at Bob Jones University, and every one of them has feigned surprise when informed that BJU has some racist policies in place. That allows them to pander to the racist and play to the middle at the same time.

Even Ronald Reagan did it. Only two things of note have EVER happened in Philadelphia, Mississippi. The brutal murder of three young men that were signing up black voters, and the official campaign announcement of Ronald Reagan for the 1980 race. And what did he talk about? "States' rights", the buzzword for everyone that loathed the civil rights legislation out of DC.

I would write much longer, but I'm very tired. If anyone can spare a moment, please say a little prayer for the little boy that fell down the elevator shaft in my building tonight. He took a nine story fall. He didn't look good, but he was alive when the ambulance carried him away earlier.

Since then, the elevators have been shut down, and I live on the tenth floor. So I'm quite tired after a few trips up and down.

But like I say, if you have a moment, put in a good word for him with the guy upstairs. He'll know who you're talking about.

Thanks.

polar donkey said...

Thurbis, you have a knack for filibustering and throwing a lot of stuff on the wall to see if sticks.

Hans Blix:Iraq has refused to guarantee its safety, unless a number of conditions are fulfilled."

U2 spy planes. I am pretty sure by this point in 2003, the US and Britain had tripled their bombing runs in the no-fly zones. I can understand even the Iraqis not wanting spy plane overflights when they are already getting bombed. That’s rational behavior even for a “rogue state.”

Protests?

Protests, really protests in front of television cameras. A dictatorial state trying manufacture propaganda to be shown on Iraqi and mid east television. I’m shocked, shocked I tell you. This is definitely cause for war. Did Blix say it stopped him from doing his job? No. This one is really a reach.

"In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for."

I’m no chemical weapons expert, but doesn’t VX break down relatively quickly, like up to 5% per month if in warm enough temperatures. I think what’s important is “unaccounted for.” By 2003, how long ago had this VX been produced? The early 1990’s maybe?

Check out Tyler Drumheller- As for manipulating intelligence (lying), the administration didn’t want intelligence that contradicted the policy they were pushing.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/008287.php

"It would seem that after years of failure, the CIA's only successful undercover mission has been in discrediting the current administration. I'm glad Porter Goss is cleaning house."

Have we not learned what a hack Porter Goss is by this point? For god sakes, he’s implicated in weapons procurement corruption and the Washington D.C. prostitution scandal breaking this past week. Fits right in with the White House’s culture of corruption. Goss is at the CIA to keep a lid on Bush's prewar manipulation.

"If you take a gander at the 1998 indictment the United States District Court /Southern District of New York"

We are using indictments as intelligence now? Here’s what happened later. "This language about al Qaeda's "understanding" with Iraq had been dropped, however, when a superseding indictment was filed in November 1998."

"EMPTA Could Sudan, using bin Laden's money, have hired some Iraqis to make chemical weapons? It seemed chillingly possible."

Chillingly, monkey’s could fly out my butt too. Even if in 1998, Iraq had been producing chemical weapons in Sudan, the “suspected” plant got blown up. Here’s more on EMPTA and Sudan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Shifa_pharmaceutical_factory
So what’s the deal in 2002 and 2003? That plant was gone. What was Iraq doing in those 4 plus years? Not much.

"Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." President Bush /September 20, 2001"

This world view has really paid off for us hasn’t it? Does diplomatic isolation really make us safer? You might say this a Manichean good vs. evil battle. But this little article points out what a bad manichean bush is and how feeble minded he is too.
http://hnn.us/articles/7202.html

"Iraq was what I would call "low hanging fruit ripe for the picking". "

Sure doesn’t seem like low hanging fruit anymore does it? Bush brilliantly decided to throw into chaos the “Yugoslavia of the middle east.” I’m sorry to have to tell you this Thurbis, but most Americans now agree with me. This war was not worth it and foolish. I just wish people would have started listening before the war.

"The case that Iraq was a danger to the stability to the world was made long before George W. Bush was elected."

True, Iraq was a threat long before Bush took office, but things change. Funny how Iran, Syria, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia didn't think Iraq was a threat to them in 2002 and 2003. But can you say the middle east is more stable now then February 2003? How much has terrorism increased in the past 3 years. Terrorism rates in 2004 were at their highest rates since 1985. The war on terrorism seems to be going as well as the war on drugs.

"Can you name for me one other nation - besides the United States - that was attacked, defeated its enemies, rebuilt their nations and then gave them back? I guess that's imperialism pax american style."

But Iraq didn’t attack us and we’re not rebuilding it either. We cut funding for reconstruction in this year's budget. Plus, isn’t $8.8 billion missing from the CPA reconstructions budget? This war has been especially marked by lies, corruption, incompetence, and war profiteering.

"No, I am not saying that at all. America has not always lived up to the ideals espoused in the Constitution or the Bill of rights, and I am all for criticism when America deserves criticism; what I find questionable are all of those who criticize only the United States of America."

Well, the vast majority of liberals criticize other countries as well. But, as the saying goes, think globally and act locally. As a citizen of the United States, it is my duty criticize what I think is wrong and I have constitutional rights to do so. It crosses the line if I give add or comfort to the enemy. That is treason and should be punished to fullest extent of the law. Just like Karl Rove should be (he's helping Iran by outing a CIA agent at worked on nuclear proliferation between AQ Khan and the Iranian government.). If you are so worried that liberal criticisms will erode public support, Isn’t that really an indication of how weak the administration’s argument for war was? If people of the United States couldn’t see that the War in Iraq and all the rhetoric is a load of crap, then support would still be in the 60 percent range. But the American public does see that is bullshit and by not doing anything in Darfur, the administration is just undermining its arguments about Iraq even more.

thurbis said...

Donkey, Donkey, Donkey, Iraq saying, "Hey, UN weapons inspectors, we may or may not shoot down your silly little plane" is not what I call "cooperating with UN weapons inspections"!

Trying to intimidate UN weapons ispectors with riots and harassment is not cooperation with UN weapons inspections,and if 1,000 tons of "unaccounted for" VX doesn't register on your give a crap meter, well, I question your judgement and pretty much the rest of your "throw 'em on the wall and see what sticks" arguments.

The only real reach here are the lenghths you go to to downplay not only the threat Saddam Hussein posed to the stability of the middle east, but whether or not he had any obligation whatsoever to abide by the terms of the cease fire he agreed to in order to stay in power after the first Gulf War.

You're a real live and let live guy when it comes to ole Saddam, eh? Interesting how you don't cut the President half the slack you cut for Saddam Hussein.

I use past indictments and statements by current critics of the Bush administration to illustrate that George W. Bush wasn't the Lone Ranger out there pulling stuff out of a hat regarding Iraq, WMD, Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.

Yes, you could make the argument that these people were for regime change in Iraq before they were against it, and that they left a big mess for the next President to deal with, but I would have preferred that they actually mean what they say and say what they mean.

I can't help but wonder how much it would have helped had the left not spent the last six years undermining the President at every opportunity.

I still recall the years of "stolen election" crap we've had to suffer thru. Remember the DNC commercial where the little girl asked something like, "may I have some more arsenic, please?". That was soooo cute!

Then we have the bogus claims of Republicans intimidating people at the polls when in fact Republicans were on the receiving end of riots by union folks at Bush Cheney headquarters across the country, shots being fired thru Bush/Cheney election offices and, oh yes, weren't some Democratic Party activists just sent to prison for slashing tires of GOP get out the vote vans?

4 Sentenced for Election Day Tire Slashing
http://www.sweetness-light.com/archive/dem-tire-slashers-get-sentenced/

Per the article: "A congresswoman’s son and three Democratic campaign workers were sentenced Wednesday to four to six months in jail for slashing tires outside a Bush-Cheney campaign office on Election Day 2004. . .The state Republican Party had rented more than 100 vehicles to give rides to voters and poll monitors on Nov. 2, 2004. The cars were parked outside a GOP campaign office when the tires were punctured. The vandalism left the drivers scrambling for new vehicles. Among those sentenced Wednesday were Sowande A. Omokunde, the son of U.S. Rep. Gwen Moore, D-Wisconsin, and Michael Pratt, the son of former acting Milwaukee Mayor Marvin Pratt."

And don't even get me started on Operation Tennessee Waltz, the sting operation that resulted in dead people and felons putting Ms.Ford into the position vacated by her indicted brother.

I realize that some on the left believe that they haven't been nearly as negative as they should be but puh-leeze! You've thrown everything including the sink and bogus, forged documents (courtesy of 60 minutes) at this administration and I can't help but think that certain people in the Middle East are viewing this with much amusement.

What's next? Is someone going to go hang out with Hugo Chavez (you know, the guy who became pen pals with international terrorist carlos the jackal and Saddam Hussein right after he got elected) and call the President a terrorist? Oh yeah, some from the far left did just that.

Before Richard Clarke was saying the regime change in Baghdad was a diversion in the war on terrorism, he had quite a different view.

If you care to you can take a gander at page 134 of the 9/11 commission report and look for the phrase "boogie to Baghdad".

According to the 9/11 commission report: “In March 1998, after bin Laden’s public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with bin Laden. . .Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and bin Laden or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the [intelligence] reporting, Iraqi officials offered bin Laden a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Laden declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative.”

In the words of Richard Clarke, "old wily Osama will likely boogie to Baghdad".

hhhmmmmm. . .'98...'99...so, while Iraqi intelligence was playing sleep over with bin ladens buddies in the middle east, bin ladens other minions were busy planning 9/11. Iraq may have had nothing to do with 9/11, but they sure were giving bin Laden, Inc. a free ride and safe harbor.

You write, "You might say this a Manichean good vs. evil battle. But this little article points out what a bad manichean bush is and how feeble minded he is too."

No,I would say that the President was 100% correct in implementing the 1998 policy of regime change in Iraq because Saddam Hussein was not only in violation of over a decade of UN sanctions, not only was he in direct violation of the terms and conditions of the cease fire, he had offered safe harbor to Osama bin Laden.

That Iraq - a designated State Sponsor of Terrorism all thru the 1990's - would cooperate with terrorists like Osama bin Laden is not as much of a stretch of the imagination as the story you're peddling in which he'd tell bin Laden, "oh, pish posh, go away you silly America hater!"

Freedonian made a good point when he responded to the Foreign Affairs article that stated, "Saddam's belated attempts at transparency backfired, leading to what the report authors call "a diplomatic and propaganda Catch-22." Monumental confusion followed. Captured senior Iraqi officials continued for many months after the 2003 war "to believe it possible" by pointing out the following:

"Had any weapons removal plans been going on "at the last minute", we surely would have noticed. It's not like we have no eyes in the sky." Freedonian

I contend that the final chapter in this story is far from being written.

The World Tribune had an article that pointed out one of the little commented on aspects of the Duelfer report.

U.S. intel 'unable to rule out' WMD transfers to Syria
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2005/me_iraq_04_26.html

Per the World Tribune on the Duelfer Report: "The Iraq Survey Group stated, in a report sponsored by the CIA, that it "was unable to complete its investigation and is unable to rule out the possibility that WMD was evacuated to Syria before the war." . . .The report marked the official end of a two-year weapons hunt led most recently by former U.N. weapons inspector Charles A. Duelfer and was published on the Government Printing Office's Web site ( http://www.gpo.gov ). It concluded that the ISG had failed to confirm reports that Syria received "official" WMD shipments from Iraq in late 2002 and early 2003, Middle East Newsline reported.

Can you name any other time when Iraq responded to some natural disaster with offers of humanitarian aid? Did Saddam Hussein suddenly turn all altruistic?

"Funny how Iran, Syria, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia didn't think Iraq was a threat to them in 2002 and 2003." Donkey

Syria? Funny you would mention Syria along with Iran. hhhhmmm. . .

Naturally, this leads me into later claims by the No. 2 general in the Iraqi Air Force:

Iraq's WMD Secreted in Syria, Sada Says
http://www.nysun.com/article/26514

Per this article in the New York Sun: "The man who served as the no. 2 official in Saddam Hussein's air force says Iraq moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria before the war by loading the weapons into civilian aircraft in which the passenger seats were removed. . .Democrats have made the absence of stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq a theme in their criticism of the Bush administration's decision to go to war in 2003. And President Bush himself has conceded much of the point; in a televised prime-time address to Americans last month, he said, "It is true that many nations believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. But much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong.". . . .The flights - 56 in total, Mr. Sada said - attracted little notice because they were thought to be civilian flights providing relief from Iraq to Syria, which had suffered a flood after a dam collapse in June of 2002. . . "Saddam realized, this time, the Americans are coming," Mr. Sada said. "They handed over the weapons of mass destruction to the Syrians.". . . .He thanked the American troops. "They liberated the country and the nation. It is a liberation force. They did a great job," he said. "We have been freed."

So we have the ISG report stating that they can't rule out the possibility that Saddam transferred something to Syria (specifically, "In 2003, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency reported the arrival of numerous convoys in Syria from the Iraqi border prior and during the U.S. invasion. Agency director James Clapper, acting on what he termed an "educated hunch," said he was confident that the Iraqi convoys contained WMD components.
The ISG appeared to echo Clapper's assessment and detailed the extensive military cooperation between Baghdad and Damascus."),
and we have the No.2 General in the Iraqi air force saying the same thing. . .I view it as a possibility. Again, this tale is far from over and life isn't like a 60 minute tv show where there's a nice tidy perry mason like ending.

What I do know is that the President probably wouldn't have loaded the military up with inbedded reporters if he thought that they'd get into Iraq and find...nothing.

I don't think the President would have made up the WMD issue during an election year if he trulyu thought that none existed and that -before the election - the world would know this fact.

Everything I see indicates that he expected to find just what he -and the world - expected that he would find.

Donkey writes, "I’m sorry to have to tell you this Thurbis, but most Americans now agree with me. This war was not worth it and foolish. I just wish people would have started listening before the war."

Yeah, and if we'd listened to the Memphis Flyer article "a road not taken" we wouldn't have gone into Afghanistan either.

At the outset of World War 2 no one knew the exact course that war would take; no one knows exactly how a war will go but sometimes you have no choice. Most Americans wouldn't agree with you if they knew just how skakey the "Bush lied" claims truly are. The mob chose Barabus and, not to put too fine of a point on it, in 1846 the majority of Americans would have probably sided the the Democratic Parties pro-slaver platform; that doesn't make it right.

I think the full extent of this whole tale has yet to be written

You're perfectly willing to tolerate Saddam Husseins game of cat and mouse while the President who was accused by people like you of "not connecting the dots to prevent 9/11" was dealing with the fact that he had to make very real decisions regarding a brutal dictator who had spent the better part of a decade deceiving the world, and corrupting the Oil for Food program at the expense of the Iraqi people. After 9/11 The President didn't have the luxory of hoping for the best from the avowed enemies of the United States.

"Neither the United States of America, nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation, large or small. We no longer live in a world where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nations security to constitute maximum peril." John F.Kennedy

Donkey asks: "If you are so worried that liberal criticisms will erode public support, Isn’t that really an indication of how weak the administration’s argument for war was?"

I would ask, if your argument is better, why is it based on the factually challenged statements of people like Joe Wilson?

Again I steer you to the Washington Post article on this man:

Per an editorial in the Washington Post, "Mr. Wilson was the one guilty of twisting the truth. In fact, his report [to the CIA] supported the conclusion that Iraq had sought uranium. . . .President Bush was right to approve the declassification of parts of a National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq three years ago in order to make clear why he had believed that Saddam Hussein was seeking nuclear weapons"

The Wall Street Journal put it this way: "In short, Joe Wilson hadn't told the truth about what he'd discovered in Africa, how he'd discovered it, what he'd told the CIA about it, or even why he was sent on the mission. . .if anyone can remember another public figure so entirely and thoroughly discredited, let us know."

As David Horowitz once wrote: " "I AM a former anti-war activist who helped to organize the first campus demonstration against the war in Vietnam at the University of California, Berkeley in 1962. I appeal to all those young people who participated in "anti-war" demonstrations on 150 college campuses this week, to think again and not to join an "anti-war" effort against America’s coming battle with international terrorism. The hindsight of history has shown that our efforts in the 1960s to end the war in Vietnam had two practical effects. The first was to prolong the war itself. Every testimony by North Vietnamese generals in the postwar years has affirmed that they knew they could not defeat the United States on the battlefield, and that they counted on the division of our people at home to win the war for them. The Vietcong forces we were fighting in South Vietnam were destroyed in 1968. In other words, most of the war and most of the casualties in the war occurred because the dictatorship of North Vietnam counted on the fact Americans would give up the battle rather than pay the price necessary to win it. This is what happened. The blood of hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese, and tens of thousands of Americans, is on the hands of the anti-war activists who prolonged the struggle and gave victory to the Communists. The second effect of the war was to surrender South Vietnam to the forces of Communism. This resulted in the imposition of a monstrous police state, the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent South Vietnamese, the incarceration in "re-education camps" of hundreds of thousands more, and a quarter of a century of abject poverty imposed by crackpot Marxist economic plans, which continue to this day. This, too, is the responsibility of the so-called anti-war movement of the 1960s. I say "so-called anti-war movement," because while many Americans were sincerely troubled by America’s war effort, the organizers of this movement were Marxists and radicals who supported a Communist victory and an American defeat."
I couldn't help but notice all the signs at yesterdays May Day protest with the marxist International A.N.S.W.E.R. name printed across the front. Many of the so-called anti-war protests have been organized by people closely associated with this group which, by the way, never once protested in Baghdad as Saddam Hussein was filling the hundreds of mass graves to date."

"Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9AM to follow the growth of the antiwar movement. . .We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war. . .Through dissent and protest (America) lost the ability to mobilize a will to win..." North Vietnamese Col. Bui Tin

It's truly interesting how there truly is nothing new under the sun, and that the more things change, the more they remain the same.

Freedonian: "Ellison's "The Glass Teat" is the standard by which I judge all essays"

To that I would say that we are in total agreement! I love the "fangs of spiro" part of the book. . .even Donkey would probably appreciate Ellison getting those kids all riled up and marching in protest. Again, it's funny how the more things change, the more they remain the same, eh?

thurbis said...

"Only two things of note have EVER happened in Philadelphia, Mississippi. The brutal murder of three young men that were signing up black voters, and the official campaign announcement of Ronald Reagan for the 1980 race. And what did he talk about? "States' rights", the buzzword for everyone that loathed the civil rights legislation out of DC." Freedonian

You could say that the Democratic Party was for "States Rights" (better known as the 10th Amendment in that whacky old Bill of Rights) when it was the pro-slavery party, then it was against "states rights" when it could be used to accuse the party of Abraham Lincoln of being racist, and then the Democratic Party was all aboard the "states rights" bandwagon when it was insisting that a brain damaged woman named Terri Schiavo be starved to death.

The war of drugs wouldn't be a war at all if the federal government had to actually abide by the 10th amendment and let the people of the various states decide the issue. I found it not surprising that the pro-legalization crowd was totally let down by the liberals on the Supreme Court who, in this instance, sided with the Bush administration to claim,

Per the Washington Post: ......Writing for the court majority, Justice John Paul Stevens said the case was "troubling" because of users' claims that they needed marijuana to alleviate physical pain and suffering. But he concluded that the court had no choice but to uphold Congress's "firmly established" power to regulate "purely local activities . . . that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce.". . . . . .Stevens was joined by the court's three other consistent supporters of federal power, Justices David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer. He also picked up the votes of two justices, Antonin Scalia and Anthony M. Kennedy, who usually support states' rights. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas dissented.

Of course this was right before the usual suspects (Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg, Kennedy and Souter) issued their pathetic decision on emminent domain essentially eliminating the concept of private property and that a mans home is his castle.

Howard Deans response? "The president and his right-wing Supreme Court think it is 'okay' to have the government take your house if they feel like putting a hotel where your house is." hhhhhmmmm. . .like, does he have any clue as to what he is talking about?

thurbis said...

Oh, and as for that "communist boogie man" that was pooh poohed in an earlier post, this is from the Workers World Party's May Day issue of the Workers World newspaper:

"A giant has awakened in the heart of imperialism. The "invisible" workers who for decades have been vilified and exploited in quasi-slavery conditions, who get up at dawn to pick the vegetables and fruits we all eat, who work in the crowded and many times unsafe areas of restaurants, shops and food processing plants, who clean and tidy hotels and homes, who take care of children and toil in so many areas for a meager wage with no benefits – they have awakened to take their rightful place in the history of the working class struggle in the United States. They are spearheading a revival of working class struggle with a call for a boycott and strike on May Day."

I love all the che pics! you'd never know that he was a cold blooded executioner who once said, "To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary. . .these procedures are an archaic bourgeois detail. This is a revolution! And a revolutionary must become a cold killing machine motivated by pure hate."

May Day protest organized by communists
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50030
as noted: "Radical organizations, including active communist and revolutionary socialist organizations, were the driving force organizing the immigration boycott rally at Union Square in New York City on Monday. WND attended the event and took over 350 photographs documenting the effort by the radical political left to deliver an anti-American, anti-imperialist message under the guise of an "immigration rights" rally."

Yeah, a picture is worth a thousand words, eh?

Bolivian troops seal energy firms
http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20060503-120652-8164r.htm

per the Times: "Mr. Morales issued his televised nationalization decree and ordered the army to seize corporate facilities just one day after a meeting in Havana with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Cuban dictator Fidel Castro."

Hey, guess what? This is the world the far left is planning for us all. . .the very people who supported the May Day protests are nothing if not supporters of the workers paradises of North Korea, Venezuela and Cuba.

Study: N. Korea's press most muzzled
http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20060502-101037-2441r.htm

per the TIMES - "NEW YORK -- North Korea has the most heavily censored press in the world, according to a new ranking by the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), although Burma, Cuba, Equatorial Guinea and Belarus aren't far behind. . .In Cuba, demonstrators are sent to the homes of journalists who stray from the official line."

This vision of the future reminds me of what Bart said about Millhouse's science project on an episode of The Simpsons: "Pretty lame, Millhouse"!

polar donkey said...

Thurbis, please keep writing. You extra crunchy wingnuttery is shining through. Liberals hate America, communists from Mexico are on the march, criticizing Bush is wrong, Saddam and Bin-Laden were in cahoots, liberals want to take your guns, homosexuals want to turn everyone gay, environmentalists want to end capitalism, Democrats want to ban the Bible, spanish will become the national language, and islam the national religion. Did I miss any other wingnut talking points. Oh yeah, there's a secular war on Christmas, but not really much of one on Easter. I know your going to take this as some sort of victory, because Freedonia and I are tired of playing. Since we can't even agree on basic points, like Saddam wasn't helping Al-Qeada, Iraq wasn't a threat to the United States, and Bush was looking for war, this is all pointless. Only you, I, and Freedonia are reading this comment thread at this point. Enjoy your last 1000 days of Bush. If you ever get a chance to ask Bush to sing national anthem in Spanish, do it. It will be just like when he was on the campaign trail in 2000.

thurbis said...

aaawwwww shucks. . .and I was having so much fun! Don't tell me that you don't like debating people who simply don't agree with you.

Seriously though, I do understand and empathize with the frustration of debating someone whose very thought process is alien.

For the record, I don't think that Liberals hate America; there are a lot of liberals whom I do admire and who have had a profound impact on my view of the world. Isaac Asimov, Gene Roddenberry, Harlan Ellison, are but a few.

I think that there is a big difference between Liberals and Leftists and that the two should not be lumped together.

I think that the hard core leftists from International ANSWER, the Internional Action Committee and the Workers Party hate America because they themselves say as much on all of their websites. I read a lot of what the far left writes; call it opposition research, call it what you will.

I didn't say that "communists from Mexico are on the the march" what I wrote was that communists organized the May Day protests because they did; they also pretty much used immigrants as props. All those ANSWER signs just didn't materialize out of nowhere. My guess is that a lot of the people who march with them don't necessarily share their beliefs; sadly a lot of people don't even seem to be aware of who they are marching with.

I'm not the one who initially claimed that Saddam and Hussein was "in cahoots"; what I quoted was from the 9/11 commission report that specifically stated, "In March 1998, after bin Laden’s public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with bin Laden. . .Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and bin Laden or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the [intelligence] reporting, Iraqi officials offered bin Laden a safe haven in Iraq."

I'm not the one who first reported that Joe Wilson was guilty of misleading the world with his op-ed in the New York Times; that was being reported in many news outlets, including the Washington Post, the paper that brought down Nixon.

Naturally, I didn't get a followup email from Howard Dean and the DNC to clear up all the bogus claims that Joe Wilson had made that Dean and the DNC had kindly forwarded to me in emails on the subject.

Then again, Howard Dean went out there and accused the liberals on the Supreme Court of being the Presidents ". . .right-wing Supreme Court" who think that it is "okay' to have the government take your house if they feel like putting a hotel where your house is." Imagine the frustration people like me experience at being in this weird twilight zone world in which Howard Dean can get reality ass backwards and it doesn't seem to register on anyones give a crap meter.

We "can't even agree on basic points" because one side (primarily the anti-Bush side) has made any number of totally unfair and bogus claims that they then accept as reality, no matter how factually challenged that reality may be.

I have often seen the following quote attributed to Thomas Jefferson: 'Dissent is the greatest form of patriotism".

"This is not the first time in American history when patriotism has been distorted to deflect criticism and mislead the nation. . .No wonder Thomas Jefferson himself said: 'Dissent is the greatest form of patriotism.' " John Kerry

"It is not unpatriotic to tell the truth to the American people about the war in Iraq. In this grave moment of our country, to use the words of Thomas efferson, 'Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.' " Ted Kennedy

That's a great quote; too bad its not from Thomas Jefferson.

Where's the dissent about source of quote?
http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn30.html

Per this article: According to the Jefferson Library: "There are a number of quotes that we do not find in Thomas Jefferson's correspondence or other writings; in such cases, Jefferson should not be cited as the source. Among the most common of these spurious Jefferson quotes are: 'Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.' ". . . . .It's truer to say that these days patriotism is the highest form of dissent -- against a culture where the media award each other Pulitzers for damaging national security, and the only way a soldier's mom can become a household name is if she's a Bush-is-the-real-terrorist kook like Cindy Sheehan, and our grade schools' claims to teach our children about America, "warts and all," has dwindled down into teaching them all the warts and nothing else"

Personally, I like most liberals I know. Just because I disagree with someone doesn't mean I don't like them.

I'm not sure the same could be said of the reverse. For having the gall not to buy into a certain point of view that I have sincere reasons for disagreeing with, what do I get?

"Liberals hate America, communists from Mexico are on the march, criticizing Bush is wrong, Saddam and Bin-Laden were in cahoots, liberals want to take your guns, homosexuals want to turn everyone gay, environmentalists want to end capitalism, Democrats want to ban the Bible, spanish will become the national language, and islam the national religion. Did I miss any other wingnut talking points."

Yeah, right, everyone like me is homophobic. Tell that to Dick Cheney's daughter.

Per an article on her upcoming book: "In her new memoir, NOW IT'S MY TURN(Simon & Schuster/Threshold Editions, 2006), Mary Cheney writes that when she told her parents she was gay, the first words out of her father’s mouth “were exactly the ones that I wanted to hear: ‘You’re my daughter, and I love you, and I just want you to be happy.’

Your other "wingnut talking points" are the basic overly sensitive reaction I see from people who can't - or simply won't - engage in debate. Just call the person you don't agree with an uninformed, mean spirited "bigot".

Pretty lame Millhouse!

"Everyone is not entitled to an opinion. Everyone is entitled to an informed opinion." Harlan Ellison