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.

11 comments:

Anonymous 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.

Chris Davis said...

And Groucho with the takedown.

Exactly.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.