Punishing the French

Well, it looks like the White House, against the advice of the State Department, wants to punish France. The plan is to snub them in NATO and not invite them to global conferences, at least the ones the US chooses to show up for.

It looks like our foreign policy is once more on a testosterone-fueled journey into new heights of arrogance and condescencion.

Hubris thy name is Bush.

Hubris Boy is Bush? Damn, we impotant here!

Where did you get this plan, Rich?

     Did you hear Frenches Mustard's recent press release? They say the only thing they have in common with the french is that they're both yellow!
... sorry ...
     I've been keeping that one to myself for days... It had to be let out.
     By the by, I heard the statue that was pulled down wasn't of Saddam. It seems it was actually of one of his doubles!
     Sorry... I'll leave now.

Once again, stupidity conquers all.

Why bother to punish the French? They are already French. Is that not sufficient?

rich ... links?

Poor Rich. Bet the black helicopters got him.:confused:

Your advertising piece for a gentleman who is likely to remain a minor candidate would probably have been better appreciated if you hadn't reposted in multiple forums.

We DO read here, you know ...

At the very least, proofread when you copy/paste it.

Sorry,

I was a bit angry about something I read elsewhere and I felt the need to proselytize. Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa.

:)

BTW:

I love freedom fries. I love eating them when I travel down the tree-lined freedom street [boulevard] and drive into the parking liberty [garage] building.

But anyway...

What really irks me about punishing the French is that they were only asking for the inspections to continue a few more months. They did not rule out force. They did not lie about their position. They did not try to spin up a scape-goat. Their sole violation of American trust is that they wanted to wait a little longer before we launched a war.

Since Iraq's vaunted bio and chem capabilities seem to have been a little exagerated, our entire justification for this war - and any qualms we might have with the French have even less ground.

How can the State department honestly attempt to enact punitive action against the French? This administration just seems to get worse and worse.

Since Iraq's vaunted bio and chem capabilities seem to have been a little exagerated, our entire justification for this war - and any qualms we might have with the French have even less ground.

     This is a little off topic buy is anyone else as surprised by this? I thought for sure, that if there wasn't any really solid evidence we would still "find" some. What is the CIA doing? Maybe they need to recruit from the DC, LA or New Orleans police force to "find" evidence properly. I know of a couple of smaller police departments in Arkansas and Oklahoma that could find all the evidence anybody could ask for.
     Bitchy little jokes aside, I am surprised. Perhaps they'll find highly suggestive remanents in the rubble of a palace or two. It wouldn't take as much then, since they could say "the bulk" was blown up.

War between the extremists Runsfeld, Ashcroft, and Wolfovich against Colin Powell has been ongoing since the silly China Spy Plane incident. Appears an offensive is now starting against Powell with a speech by Newt Gingrich attacking Powell for what amounts to accusations of incompetence.

These are forces inside the administration (The Vulcans) that Powell talks describes when defining Christie Whitman as a wind dummy.

Seems to me the french had more up their sleeve than a few months delay. There was an awful lot of chuckin' and jivein' going on in the background.
I've been hearing a time line on what and how weapons were destroyed in the last few days before hostilities started. Is this just spin? bullshit? I don't know.

I have utter confidence in my government that the proper evidence will become manifest at the proper time.

I have utter confidence that even if the proper evidence does not get found, someone will find something - or they may just say that all the weapons were moved to Syria.

I like the claims that a senior Iraqi unnamed scientist came out of the woodwork to tell the Americans that Iraq destroyed everything they had- and cleaned up all the evidence - just as the Americans were advancing.

Does this make sense? If you had a gun, and someone was breaking into your house, would you destroy your gun so that the invader would not punish you when he found it? this stupid breakdown in reasoning is really getting agravating. The right seems to peddle the stupidest stories to the masses and they are totally willing to believe without question.

All hail the God King.

I have utter confidence that even if the proper evidence does not get found, someone will find something - or they may just say that all the weapons were moved to Syria.

It seems like you're just engineering a situation where you're going to believe what you want to believe no matter what happens. If they do find WMD, are you going to assume they were planted? I mean, that's certainly possible, but I think we should at least wait and see what happens before we start speculating.

Juju,

If the administration was trying to be credible - and dispel any notions of planted evidence or malfeasnce, they would allow the United Nations inspectors to verify and help find any WMDs that they discover. The fact that they are denying entry to the U.N. leaves me in doubt.

These are the same people that said that aluminum tubes imported into Iraq were used for gas centrifuge uranium enrichment - which turned out to be a lie. They said that they had documented proof that Iraq tried to purchase uranium from Africa - which turned out to be a very poor forgery. They cited a dossier as proof of Iraq's weapons program - that turned out to be a plagarized term paper written 10 years ago. They strained to link AL- Qaeda to Saddam Hussein's regime - which was tenious at best.

It seems like you're just engineering a situation where you're going to believe what you want to believe no matter what happens

I am student of science. When a person makes a scientific claim, scientists maintain skepticism until the claim has been demonstrated to be valid, and other sceintists have verified the claim. The whole business of having an open and self-corrective scientific community makes maintaining a fraudulant claim almost impossible. In this open environment, truth is not a matter of trust, it is a matter of independent verififcation of initial claims.

The fact that the U.S. is going to exclude any international verification of WMDs found - takes any discoveries they make out of the realm of real, valid, verifiable proof, and makes them simply based upon faith that the government would not lie.

As you can see above, the govenrment certainly seems to have no problem using flassified documents, plagiarism, lies, and circumstantial evidence to pursue it's chosen course of action.

How can you think that blind faith is justified?

If they do find WMD, are you going to assume they were planted?

Without internaitonal verification, any discoveries are suspect.

If an administration lied to the world to start a war - then excluded the world from verifying any of the claims the administration made, how can you automatically assume that any discoveries are valid?

What is your burden of proof?

I think we should at least wait and see what happens before we start speculating

I agree, but without international oversight, I am going to have a hard time buying anything they find.

DId you know that the guy they picked to head the WMD search force is a very close friend of Condoleeza Rice? Is it really that far fetched to think that he might be a team player?

You could have answered Juju's question without projecting the hysterical opposite onto him.

Actually I guess you did answer Juju's question, just not directly.

BTW you're taking the side of the Iraqi Information Minister about the aluminum tubes.

I am taking the position of Mohamed El Baradei, the International Atomic Energy Association Director General regarding the aluminum tubes.

Here is a Wahington Post article about the subject. Most experts said that the aluminum tubes could not be used for unranium enrichment without massive reengineering, and that the technique would require advanced technology that Iraq did not possess.

The IAEA is very reliable. I tend to trust them far more than I trust the current administration.

My answer had the caveat that I would find any WMDS suspect without verification by an independent entity. If you prefer a one word answer, the answer is yes.

These are the same people that said that aluminum tubes imported into Iraq were used for gas centrifuge uranium enrichment - which turned out to be a lie. They said that they had documented proof that Iraq tried to purchase uranium from Africa - which turned out to be a very poor forgery. They cited a dossier as proof of Iraq's weapons program - that turned out to be a plagarized term paper written 10 years ago. They strained to link AL- Qaeda to Saddam Hussein's regime - which was tenious at best.

Since these excuses have been proved to be suspect, I wonder if they were thrown up to protect valid intelligence sources? You know, like when the end justifies the means everyone will forget these subterfuges and the spy network won't be comprimised. Not sure. just a thought. Maybe just a hope.

And where did ElBaradei get his information? When Iraq itself claimed it was using those tubes for reverse engineering rockets, he thought that was plausible. When it turned out the specifications for the tubes was higher than that the US specifies for its own rockets, and was increasing in precision, ElBaradei scrambled for another explanation.

Forgotten was the fact that they were illegal in the first place.

Undertoad,

The aluminum tubes fell under the bounds of dual use items and were not automatically illegal. I had not seen any articles where El Baradei rescinded his reservations about the aluminum tubes. Do you have a link?

When Iraq itself claimed it was using those tubes for reverse engineering rockets, he thought that was plausible.

They were not reverse engineering rockets, they were making rockets. They required massive modifications in order to be used in a gas centrifuge.

hen it turned out the specifications for the tubes was higher than that the US specifies for its own rockets

The specifications of the tubes was part of the reason why the U.N. though the Iraqi explanation was the more likely usage of the tubes. The tubes were too thin and not reinforced to a sufficent degree to be used for a gas centrifuge. They would have required additional mateiral and milling capabilities that Iraq did not have in order to modify them fir ilicit use.

If you have some proof, I will change my position, but barring thatm I will still maintain my position vis-a-vis the tubes.

here is one article noting how ElB. was still hanging with the reverse-engineering theory in late January.

You sure know a lot about milling aluminum tubes for centrifuge usage.

Originally posted by Undertoad
When it turned out the specifications for the tubes was higher than that the US specifies for its own rockets, and was increasing in precision, ElBaradei scrambled for another explanation.

ElBaradei did not scramble for another explanation - except if you believe everything that right wing American extremists say. Even Tony Blair's government was more in agreement with ElBaradei in a report issued at the start of 2003.

Why were specification tolerances tighter? I do that on everything I reverse engineer. Only after a working model do we experiment and learn where tolerances can be relaxed.

Get a grip UT. Those aluminum tubes are part of a big campagin by the George Jr admininstration to claim Iraq was running a nuclear weapons program. At what point do you finally admit that the administration was lying? Even the George Jr administration quit trying to claim that Iraq had a nuclear weapons program. When are you going to admit that the Geroge Jr administration will lie? This is not an honest administration. They even lied about all those Iraqis who would welcome us with open arms.

Of course the George Jr administration lied repeatedly about those aluminum tubes. Desparate to prove Iraq was running a nuclear program. Desperate for some viable fiction to prove it. They were so desperate to create lies then. They will also be desperate to create a phoney WMD program, if necessary. Why keep UN weapons inspectors out? No UN make "lies if necessary" just so much easier.

Tom, you don't have to help the reverse-engineering theory along, it was discarded.

Meanwhile, I'm taking wagers on WMD, and if anyone wants to offer odds I think it would be appropriate considering your levels of certainty. How about 3 to 1 on finding something that 90% of the public agrees is non-planted WMD?

I think Blix will definitely require physical sight of whatever the US "finds." I also think he'll be the first to say that they originated in an Iowan warehouse facility, as he is the current expert. :)

was still hanging with the reverse-engineering theory in late January

Did you read the article? El Baradei said that he thought the aluminum tubes were consistent with attempts to reverse engineer rockets. The report I read - by an engineer with the Federatin of American Scientists - described what Iraq had - what they needed to make a gas centrifuge uranium enrichment system, and what they needed to make rockets. His conclusion was that it would have been nearly impossible for Iraq to use the tubes for uranium enrichment. Then, about a month later I read the Washington Post article.

Note: Your article - which is entirely consistent with my original claim - was written in January. My article was written in March. SInce El Baradei does not change his tune in either article, I don't see how this porves me wrong.

The whole point is, Bush knew what El Bardei said. Bush knew what the scientific community said. Bush knew that they were not lying or playing politics. Bush then claimed in his state of the union address that the tubes were partial proof that Iraq had a clandestine nuclear weapons program.

I can't think of a more blatant lie.

As I said before, I have no doubt that we will find some WMDs. The problem is, I have a hard time believing anything this administration says.

There is an old Texas saying: Fool me once, shame one...shame on, you. Fool me twice... fool me, can't get fooled again.

Fool me once, shame one...shame on, you. Fool me twice... fool me, can't get fooled again.

Say What????:confused:

Bush said that. He was trying to get out foll me once shame on you, fool my twice shame on me. But his linguistic gears were a little creaky that day and he mangled the idiom beyond recognition.

I was trying to be humourific.

Oh, OK. I hadn't heard that particular fo...foux...faoux...fuck up. Thanks.:)

The bigger problem with all of this is that it's selective use of data. A boatload of stuff was presented over the last few months, and a bunch of people cherry-picked it for the things they felt they could punch holes in and then held up that rather small number of things as troubling evidence of some sort. If you tried that kind of stunt in science class, you'd get an F.

But don't take my word for it. Here's the whole "aluminum tubes" section of the Powell speech at the UN... notice how none of it is discredited by anything anyone here has posted, and notice how the parts they can't attempt to discredit are simply left alone. Explain the tubes without explaining the magnets? You can't:

He is so determined that has made repeated covert attempts to acquire high-specification aluminum tubes from 11 different countries, even after inspections resumed. These tubes are controlled by the Nuclear Suppliers Group precisely because they can be used as centrifuges for enriching uranium.

By now, just about everyone has heard of these tubes and we all know that there are differences of opinion. There is controversy about what these tubes are for. Most U.S. experts think they are intended to serve as rotors in centrifuges used to enrich uranium. Other experts, and the Iraqis themselves, argue that they are really to produce the rocket bodies for a conventional weapon, a multiple rocket launcher.

Let me tell you what is not controversial about these tubes. First, all the experts who have analyzed the tubes in our possession agree that they can be adapted for centrifuge use.

Second, Iraq had no business buying them for any purpose. They are banned for Iraq.

I am no expert on centrifuge tubes, but this is an old army trooper. I can tell you a couple things.

First, it strikes me as quite odd that these tubes are manufactured to a tolerance that far exceeds U.S. requirements for comparable rockets. Maybe Iraqis just manufacture their conventional weapons to a higher standard than we do, but I don't think so.

Second, we actually have examined tubes from several different batches that were seized clandestinely before they reached Baghdad. What we notice in these different batches is a progression to higher and higher levels of specification, including in the latest batch an anodized coating on extremely smooth inner and outer surfaces.

Why would they continue refining the specifications? Why would they continuing refining the specification, go to all that trouble for something that, if it was a rocket, would soon be blown into shrapnel when it went off?

The high-tolerance aluminum tubes are only part of the story. We also have intelligence from multiple sources that Iraq is attempting to acquire magnets and high-speed balancing machines. Both items can be used in a gas centrifuge program to enrich uranium.

In 1999 and 2000, Iraqi officials negotiated with firms in Romania, India, Russia and Slovenia for the purchase of a magnet production plant. Iraq wanted the plant to produce magnets weighing 20 to 30 grams. That's the same weight as the magnets used in Iraq's gas centrifuge program before the Gulf War.

This incident, linked with the tubes, is another indicator of Iraq's attempt to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program.

Intercepted communications from mid-2000 through last summer showed that Iraq front companies sought to buy machines that can be used to balance gas centrifuge rotors. One of these companies also had been involved in a failed effort in 2001 to smuggle aluminum tubes into Iraq.

People will continue to debate this issue, but there is no doubt in my mind. These illicit procurement efforts show that Saddam Hussein is very much focused on putting in place the key missing piece from his nuclear weapons program, the ability to produce fissile material.

     The dicussion of WMD's is interesting and all but isn't it past that? I mean the discussion is still going and question aren't being asked much outside of the UN. And Bush has made it pretty clear that he does't care about them.
     I'm just saying that the people still keeping score on it are in the minority, I did an unofficial poll of my own, (I do that a lot) most people didn't know about the tubes at all. Nobody seemed to care if they had them or not, saying that it was over either way. I'm not saying that my poll is perfect, but I know that I got the info I wanted from random people I met. No trick questions. I even met one guy that had never even heard of the Patriot Act...

Maybe you are right. Naybe just a few lies are okay. Maybe it is fine to knowingly use plagiarized documents to prove your case. Maybe it is fine to alter the statement and intent of OBL's recordings. Maybe it is fine to used forged documents.

My point is, if you lie a few times, believing you in the future is very difficult. I have seen scads of Bush lies. I have seen Powell lie several times. Many of Powell's testimony have been disproven ( like the chemical weapons plant that Blix visited the day after Powell's presentation - finding it without indoor electricity or plumbing ), most of his assertions relied on faith - that Powell was not dissembling.

How many lies does it take to damage one's credibility?

Most U.S. experts think they are intended to serve as rotors in centrifuges used to enrich uranium

The only people I saw pushing that point of view were the Bush accolytes. The Federation of American Scientists disagreed with his take.

who have analyzed the tubes in our possession agree that they can be adapted for centrifuge use.

Everybody said this - the point was, the modifications required were immense, and Iraq was not thought to have the technology capable of making said modifications.

Second, Iraq had no business buying them for any purpose. They are banned for Iraq

They were dual use items, which were selectively restricted at different times for different reasons. If they were going to be used for rockets, they are not in violation of the sanctions. If they were going to a nuclear weapons program they are. Powell believed the latter, the rest of the world believed the former.

Pencils were also restricted items because they contain graphite - which could be used in a nuclear reactor.

manufactured to a tolerance that far exceeds U.S. requirements for comparable rockets

An assertion that could be true, but also may not be true. different weapons systems all have different specifications - this - in and of itself is not proof of anything. Most of the scientific community seem to think that the tubes specs. were not indicative of anything. The tubes still required massive reworking to function the way Powell is suggesting they functioned.

including in the latest batch an anodized coating on extremely smooth inner and outer surfaces.

So, according to Powell, if you are going to make a missile, the surfaces of the missile should not be finished. Even though these things may be stored for several years, you cannot anodize them to keep the surface from getting damaged.

Why would they continuing refining the specification, go to all that trouble for something that, if it was a rocket, would soon be blown into shrapnel when it went off?

Poorly built weapons are unreliable. This line of argument is specious anyway. If you look at an artillery shell, a TOW missile, a Javelin, or any other weapons system, they are all polished, clean, and the aluminum has an anodized coating on it. Even the weapons that are about to be blow up are built well - because a soldier trusts his life to the reliability of a weapon.

We also have intelligence from multiple sources that Iraq is attempting to acquire magnets and high-speed balancing machines

Sort of like saying - we have intelligence from numerous African sources that Iraq tried to purchase fissile material from Nigeria. When does an unsubstantiated claim become the truth? I gues you have to give them your faith, but I have a hard time giving faith to liars.

Iraqi officials negotiated with firms in Romania, India, Russia and Slovenia for the purchase of a magnet production plant

An item that is true.

Iraq wanted the plant to produce magnets weighing 20 to 30 grams. That's the same weight as the magnets used in Iraq's gas centrifuge program before the Gulf War.

An item that is speculation. Followed by a link back to the pre gulf war weapons program. Does he have any proof or documentation that Iraq wanted to produce magnets that were 20-30 grams or is that just an assumption?

This incident, linked with the tubes, is another indicator of Iraq's attempt to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program.

So two specious claims - put together - makes a compelling argument? What are the claims? Iraq had high specification aluminum tubes, and some Iraq officials wanted to buy a magnet plant. If you assume that Iraq is trying to reconstitute it's nuclear program - and work back from there, this makes perfect sense. If you are trying to determin if Iraq has a nuclear weapons program, these points don't make a compelling case.

Intercepted communications from mid-2000 through last summer showed that Iraq front companies sought to buy machines that can be used to balance gas centrifuge rotors.

DId Powell ever produce these communications? Or did he just claim that we intercepted them - and left it at that?

I have a relly hard time buying this guy's word. If that is all he offered, I can't really trust it.

These illicit procurement efforts show that Saddam Hussein is very much focused on putting in place the key missing piece from his nuclear weapons program, the ability to produce fissile material.

I thought they had proof that Iraq was buying nuclear material from abroad.




I don't know. Maybe I am wrong. But I have not seen any reports that we have found any nuclear reactos or weapons plants. If we find chemical WMDs, but not a nuclear program, does that mean Powell was lying - or just all this just fall down the memoory hole?

Originally posted by richlevy

Hubris thy name is Bush.

Actually, my name is Mike.

Originally posted by Hubris Boy


Actually, my name is Mike.

Mike Bush, by any chance?

Oh dear, look what just popped up:

UK Newspaper Says Documents Link Bin Laden to Iraq

LONDON (Reuters) - Britain's Sunday Telegraph newspaper said it had discovered documents showing Iraqi intelligence hosted an envoy from Osama bin Laden in 1998 and sought to meet the alleged September 11 mastermind in person.

I don't know. Maybe I am wrong. But I have not seen any reports that we have found any nuclear reactos or weapons plants. If we find chemical WMDs, but not a nuclear program, does that mean Powell was lying - or just all this just fall down the memoory hole?

While the embedded reporters were still there we were seeing one report per day. The Pentagon finally said all first reports are false because initial tests may well mean nothing. Now that the embedded reporters are gone, I'd wait a month or two before locking in so tightly on this "we'll find nothing" attitude.

Right now they are sifting through the papers in Baath party offices. Not only are they making al Qaeda connections, they've got a Brit MP taking million-dollar bribes to support the anti-war effort.

It's good to be back at this stuff; I'd gone on hiatus from serious posting in Current Events, but this thread's in Politics!

Originally posted by Undertoad

it had discovered documents .

Documents *planted* by the evil Bush admin. :)

Maybe you are right. Naybe just a few lies are okay. Maybe it is fine to knowingly use plagiarized documents to prove your case. Maybe it is fine to alter the statement and intent of OBL's recordings. Maybe it is fine to used forged documents.

     Er, I didn't mean to suggest it was okay. I was more saying that no matter how right you are it won't matter. Most people have forgetten the reason... er... excuse for the war had anything to do with WMD.
     No, not everyone, and most likely not anyone on this board. Obviously though people that are reading this are the types to seek out a little more info. I'm saying that I think that finding nothing at all would have almost no effect of Bush at the national level. The people that keep track already have problems with Bush. So, nothing new here.
     Yeah, it might cause problems on the international level, but Bush has already pissed everyone off. Nothing new there.

This story is from the independent in UK.

Revealed: How the road to war was paved with lies

Intelligence agencies accuse Bush and Blair of distorting and fabricating evidence in rush to war
By Raymond Whitaker
27 April 2003


The case for invading Iraq to remove its weapons of mass destruction was based on selective use of intelligence, exaggeration, use of sources known to be discredited and outright fabrication, The Independent on Sunday can reveal.

A high-level UK source said last night that intelligence agencies on both sides of the Atlantic were furious that briefings they gave political leaders were distorted in the rush to war with Iraq. "They ignored intelligence assessments which said Iraq was not a threat," the source said. Quoting an editorial in a Middle East newspaper which said, "Washington has to prove its case. If it does not, the world will for ever believe that it paved the road to war with lies", he added: "You can draw your own conclusions."

UN inspectors who left Iraq just before the war started were searching for four categories of weapons: nuclear, chemical, biological and missiles capable of flying beyond a range of 93 miles. They found ample evidence that Iraq was not co-operating, but none to support British and American assertions that Saddam Hussein's regime posed an imminent threat to the world.

On nuclear weapons, the British Government claimed that the former regime sought uranium feed material from the government of Niger in west Africa. This was based on letters later described by the International Atomic Energy Agency as crude forgeries.

On chemical weapons, a CIA report on the likelihood that Saddam would use weapons of mass destruction was partially declassified. The parts released were those which made it appear that the danger was high; only after pressure from Senator Bob Graham, head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, was the whole report declassified, including the conclusion that the chances of Iraq using chemical weapons were "very low" for the "foreseeable future".

On biological weapons, the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, told the UN Security Council in February that the former regime had up to 18 mobile laboratories. He attributed the information to "defectors" from Iraq, without saying that their claims – including one of a "secret biological laboratory beneath the Saddam Hussein hospital in central Baghdad" – had repeatedly been disproved by UN weapons inspectors.

On missiles, Iraq accepted UN demands to destroy its al-Samoud weapons, despite disputing claims that they exceeded the permitted range. No banned Scud missiles were found before or since, but last week the Secretary of State for Defence, Geoff Hoon, suggested Scuds had been fired during the war. There is no proof any were in fact Scuds.

Some American officials have all but conceded that the weapons of mass destruction campaign was simply a means to an end – a "global show of American power and democracy", as ABC News in the US put it. "We were not lying," it was told by one official. "But it was just a matter of emphasis." American and British teams claim they are scouring Iraq in search of definitive evidence but none has so far been found, even though the sites considered most promising have been searched, and senior figures such as Tariq Aziz, the former Deputy Prime Minister, intelligence chiefs and the man believed to be in charge of Iraq's chemical weapons programme are in custody.

Robin Cook, who as Foreign Secretary would have received high-level security briefings, said last week that "it was difficult to believe that Saddam had the capacity to hit us". Mr Cook resigned from the Government on the eve of war, but was still in the Cabinet as Leader of the House when it released highly contentious dossiers to bolster its case.

One report released last autumn by Tony Blair said that Iraq could deploy chemical and biological weapons within 45 minutes, but last week Mr Hoon said that such weapons might have escaped detection because they had been dismantled and buried. A later Downing Street "intelligence" dossier was shown to have been largely plagiarised from three articles in academic publications. "You cannot just cherry-pick evidence that suits your case and ignore the rest. It is a cardinal rule of intelligence," said one aggrieved officer. "Yet that is what the PM is doing." Another said: "What we have is a few strands of highly circumstantial evidence, and to justify an attack on Iraq it is being presented as a cast-iron case. That really is not good enough."

Glen Rangwala, the Cambridge University analyst who first pointed out Downing Street's plagiarism, said ministers had claimed before the war to have information which could not be disclosed because agents in Iraq would be endangered. "That doesn't apply any more, but they haven't come up with the evidence," he said. "They lack credibility."

Mr Rangwala said much of the information on WMDs had come from Ahmed Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress (INC), which received Pentagon money for intelligence-gathering. "The INC saw the demand, and provided what was needed," he said. "The implication is that they polluted the whole US intelligence effort."

Facing calls for proof of their allegations, senior members of both the US and British governments are suggesting that so-called WMDs were destroyed after the departure of UN inspectors on the eve of war – a possibility raised by President George Bush for the first time on Thursday.

This in itself, however, appears to be an example of what the chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix called "shaky intelligence". An Iraqi scientist, writing under a pseudonym, said in a note slipped to a driver in a US convoy that he had proof information was kept from the inspectors, and that Iraqi officials had destroyed chemical weapons just before the war.

Other explanations for the failure to find WMDs include the possibility that they might have been smuggled to Syria, or so well hidden that they could take months, even years, to find. But last week it emerged that two of four American mobile teams in Iraq had been switched from looking for WMDs to other tasks, though three new teams from less specialised units were said to have been assigned to the quest for "unconventional weapons" – the less emotive term which is now preferred.

Mr Powell and Mr Bush both repeated last week that Iraq had WMDs. But one official said privately that "in the end, history and the American people will judge the US not by whether its officials found canisters of poison gas or vials of some biological agent [but] by whether this war marked the beginning of the end for the terrorists who hate America".

Used in accordance with the "fair use" provision of the constitution as non-comercial reprint.

Originally posted by ScottSolomon
"it was difficult to believe that Saddam had the capacity to hit us".

Saddam's ability to directly attack us was not the issue as I understood it. His ability to hand off WOMDs, many of which are very difficult to track, to terrorists *was* the reason. That's why I supported this war.

As Colin Powell explained in the Feb 5 "show and tell" to the UN, a small amount of the Anthrax toxin did enormous damage. Enough to effectively shut down the post office and the Senate for a couple of weeks. What I was fearful of , as well as a substancial number of Americans, was that we would see these weapons/materials imported for use against us. Our economy is fragile and the possibility that people might become victims of terror WOMDs would seriously damage the economy, even if the chances of being directly affected are slim. Look at what the DC sniper did for the local economy. What were the true chances of being shot by malvo? Much less than being capped by the natives, but people stopped spending. It made a big difference, terror WOMDs would be exponentially worse.

Given the physical makeup of these substances, it would be extremely difficult to keep them out. Hell, we can't even keep Mexicans from sneaking over here in masses, how could we detect and intercept vials of chem or bio weapons? We aren't set up for that thorough of inspection at the ports etc. That would cost a fortune to set up the security and increase the cost of almost everything. Just look at the fustercluck the "new and improved" airline security has cost and caused.

Whether the true possibility of al-qeada getting Saddam's WOMDs is high or low, that's why *I* supported this massive, expensive military action.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81023,00.html

"Preventing Saddam from aiding terrorists is seen by a plurality as the most important reason to take military action. By a three-to-one margin Americans say the top reason for action is to keep Iraq from supplying weapons to terrorists, with 14 percent say the most important reason is to promote democracy and human rights and 10 percent say to secure oil supplies. Twenty percent say it is a combination of these."

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,6344726%255E1702,00.html

FRANCE gave Saddam Hussein's regime regular reports on its dealings with US officials, The Sunday Times reported, quoting files it had found in the wreckage of the Iraqi foreign ministry.

The conservative British weekly said the information kept Saddam abreast of every development in US planning and may have helped him to prepare for war.

ruh-roh!

Revealed: How the road to war was paved with lies

My parents told me the toys came from Santa Clause. Even when I knew better I didn't care as long as they kept coming. The reasons Bush/Blair gave are now moot. What they/we do now will effect the future of the middle east orders of magnitude more than the reasons it started.

I think, in the context of what you're saying, 'affect' is the more appropriate word.

(edit - spelling error. :) )

You may be right but I was thinking differently. "The particular way in which something affects or influences something else: the effect of morine on the body." There's no doubt we will affect them at this point. However the way we effect them is critical. There was never any question we had making war down pat. Now comes the hard part.

French helped Iraq to stifle dissent

FRANCE colluded with the Iraqi secret service to undermine a Paris conference held by the prominent human rights group Indict, according to documents found in the foreign ministry in Baghdad.

ruh-roh!

Aluminum tubes back again (headed for NK this time):

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/breaking_news/5725153.htm

BERLIN -The manager of a German company has been charged with trying to ship to China components that could have been used to help make nuclear weapons, prosecutors said Saturday.

The man, who wasn't identified, is accused of violating German export laws by failing to secure authorization for the shipment, said Eckard Maak, a spokesman for prosecutors in the southwestern city of Stuttgart.

He declined to elaborate or to comment on a report in the newsmagazine Der Spiegel that German authorities suspect the shipment - officially addressed to China's Shenyang Aircraft Corp. - was in fact destined for North Korea, currently under intense scrutiny over its nuclear program.

I have some Aluminum tubing in the back. Should I expect a visit from Hans (and the Marines)?

Don't worry honey. They won't even make it up the street ...

Just make sure you borrow the chipper/shredder, and let the fellah with the hogfarm know we'll be bringing up a couple contractor bags full of slop.

I love how Bush supporters dodge issues and offer scapegoats as arguments. UnderToad pointed to an article in which the Telegraph - which is the UK version of FOXNews - found references to Osama Bin Laden and a possible intetion to meet with OBL. What Toad does not point out was that - in 1998 - OBL was not guilty of any crimes against the U.S. or the west. Later in 1998, Washington blamed OBL for the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Africa.

"The documents do not make clear whether the hoped-for meeting between Iraqi officials and bin Laden took place."

So a meeting - which may or may not have taken place - in 1998, before OBL was accused of attacking any U.S. interests - is proof that OBL and Iraq are in bed together.

Remember, it was just a few years ago that the United States counted Osama Bin Laden as an ally. Things change, and associations deteriorate. I would have to see some proof that Iraq was a little more involved with OBL than a document that talks about a meeting that occurred before we had a beef with OBL for me to truly buy the idea that Iraq was in collusion on 9-11 or other events.

I'd wait a month or two before locking in so tightly on this "we'll find nothing" attitude.

Weren't we supposed to know where they were? We said we did. We said we had credible intelligence about what and where Iraq had these weapons. But now, after we have complete control of the country, we can find nothing? If Iraq had WMDs, why didn't they use them when we invaded?

His ability to hand off WOMDs, many of which are very difficult to track, to terrorists *was* the reason.

What has changed? Now, you have thousands of Iraqi scientists, technicians, and weapons experts that are willing to sell their services to anyone with cash. We have created a stong undertow of anti-Americanism within the Muslim community. We have villified some of the allies that we need to fight a war against terrorism. We still have an unsecure border and spotty port inspections. More than any of that, we have not found any proof that Iraq even had the weapons we KNOW they have.

What was to stop Iraq from giving anything they had to terrorists before the attack? What can we do now it that was the case?

Has this war made us any safer?!

Enough to effectively shut down the post office and the Senate for a couple of weeks

You know about the Federation of American Scientists report that the Anthrax sent to Tom Daschle's office was the same type, concentration, strain, and purity of American weapons grade Anthrax, right? The New York Times said the same thing.

was that we would see these weapons/materials imported for use against us

Biological weapons can be manufactured in your garage, and a smart terrorist would simply bring the seed spores to America - then rely on the open American markets to buy the inubators, centrifuges, and filtration systems to make massive quantities on the substance.

None of this requires a foreign nation's support. How did attacking Iraq make this any less of a threat?

What were the true chances of being shot by malvo? Much less than being capped by the natives, but people stopped spending. It made a big difference, terror WOMDs would be exponentially worse

Why aren't we attacking the media then? The media love to grab a scary story - like ANthrax or the D.C. sniper, or the Duct tape - and make it into a public frenzy of hysteria and nonsense. Chemical and Bio weapons are not really weapons of mass destruction, but the corporate media - serving as the government's bullypulpit - whipped America up into a frenzy of fear - that does stifle the economy, but it also makes waging war incredibly easy. It keeps people from questioning authority, and it allows the people in power to paint anyone that disagrees with them as antiAmerican traitors.

As it stands, we will have another terrorist attack against America. This is simply becasue we have not addressed the underlying issues that motivate regular people with strong religious views - to pilot planes into buildings. We still have troops stationed all over the middle east. We still support Israel, regardless of what they do to the Palestinians, we now have invaded Afghanistan - and left it to fall apart, we also have invaded Iraq - which may also be falling apart. We've killed thousands of people - many more than the people that died in 9-11 - to avenge 9-11 ( which was really just revenge for previous insults and attacks ) , and we have not found OBL or Saddam Hussein.

The terrorists on 9-11 did not need WMDs. They did just fine with unconventional methods of destruction. I doubt that we will be able to stop a similarly motivated group of people that want to destroy us more - now that we have ripped through Iraq and Afghanistan.

how could we detect and intercept vials of chem or bio weapons

You can't. That is the point. It does not take a national effort to create biological weapons or biotoxins. It takes 100 bucks worth of lab equipment and a modicum of intellect.

All we can do is try to catch the guys we can find, and press them to give us information. Then we need to actually come up with a valid and equitable deal for the Palestinians, we need to remove the sanctions on Iraq, and we need to remove our military bases from all over the freakin world. If we could also avoid bombing civilians, bombing aspirin factories, leeching the Iraqi oil, villifying allies, and rejoin the world community, I think this would also go a long way toward removing these zealots motivations for hating us.

They don;t hate us because of freedom, Britney Spears, or liberty. They hate us because we have supported brutal dictators, unfair policies, genocide, and ethnic cleansing in the middle east. They hate us because we selectively ignore U.N. resolutions against Israel, while we enforce U.N. resolutions against Iraq.

Whether the true possibility of al-qeada getting Saddam's WOMDs is high or low, that's why *I* supported this massive, expensive military action.

The problem is, this war will not help limit the development or proliferation of WMDs. If anything, it will cause nations to accelerate their nuclear programs, and it will give terrorists a new recruiting tool for the terrorist attacks in the future.

The opinions of the poorly infomed FAUX News viewers do not convince me that this war was a good idea. Personally I have a different reason for this war.

I think that the PNAC people were itching to gain acces to Iraq for strategic reasons. They also wanted to showcase the AMerican military systems - to boost sales of technology to other nations and to scare any challengers. I think that some of the peopl ein the administration did not like that Iraq changed its curency for oil deals to the Euro from the dollar. I think that OPEC was going to also change their currency of trade to the Euro - which would encourage a mass international exodus to the Euro and deeply devalue the dollar - with dire economic impact.

I do not think that the suffering people in Iraq were of any concern. There is suffering all over the world - why should we be concerned with Iraq's suffering? I also found it Ironic that the people that were advocating this war were the people that were trading with Iraq after he gassed the Iranians and the Kurds - which does not exactly lend a great deal of credibility to their intentions.

Undertoad thinks that the activities of the French negate any of concerns about the lies in this run up to war. Well, if the French intelligence knew as much about Iraq's WMD program as the U.S. did, and they knew that Iraq did not have a WMD program, why wouldn't they try to maintain diplomatic relations and communication with Iraq? How could France have helped Iraq prepare for war? It was strikingly obvious to anyone with half a brain that the U.S. was going to attack before the summer. It was obvious to everyone that Iraq was going to be attacked.

Iraq was under constant surveillance, and inspectors were on the ground - If Iraq was hiding WMDs, they were doing it without the help of the French - What kind of help could they have given anyway?!?!

You think that France was the only nation to suppress dissent?!?! Ever hear of the Dixie Chicks?


I don't know. Every few days, we say we found some WMD material. The day after, in small print, the story is retracted as the later tests confirmed nothing.

If Iraq had no WMDs, I do not think the French were wrong to maintain diplomatic relations with Iraq.

But none of this matters. The French were only asking for more time. They never said they would not support an attack - they just wanted the inspections to be allowed to search Iraq. They also did not want an automatic trigger for war. God forbid, they were trying to make sure there was a valid reason to attack before the bullets started flying - damn traitors.

Did they have ulterios motives? Yes. I don't think there is an international action - including our own - that does not have various ulterior motives. Does that mean they were wrong to disagree with the U.S. and deserve to be punished? No. Not any more than anyone else who disagrees with us.

Oh yes, the inspections. They just need more time, right?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/04/27/MN99456.DTL

The SF Chronicle sends a reporter to sift through papers in Baghdad. Although the Iraqi spy agency location he goes to has been bombed, and subsequently looted of anything valuable, he can still open up a red notebook and find notes from last September from Iraqi officials, explaining how to beat the upcoming inspections and how scientists should behave during interviews.

The first item in the note is listed as "the entry of inspection teams" -- an apparent reference to the anticipated visits of U.N. weapons inspectors, which were later authorized under U.N. Resolution 1441. The inspectors' mission was to ascertain whether Iraq still possessed chemical, biological or nuclear arms.

Among subsequent annotations are: "evacuating the new equipment," "the files to be moved with the index," "erasing everything related to the information" and "the records (space) evacuating in the house along with inventory."

These notations, often written in incomplete sentences, are not entirely clear, but they suggest that important records and equipment were to be removed from one or more private homes, and placed elsewhere -- possibly in other private homes.

Now keep in mind there are trailer loads of these kinds of documents, and you can bet the reporters are not at the really good locations.

On OBL: the OBL connection was considered impossible by the anti-war folks only about a month ago. They're religiously incompatible, we heard. Now we find out OBL's invited to the palaces, and you want to play this information down. Riiiight.

1998, if you recall, was when OBL suddenly focused attacks on the US, hitting the USS Cole and, in all probability, starting planning for 2001. It was the year when the Taliban went completely pro-OBL. Coincidence?

One of the early findings in Iraq was a airplane fuselage mockup - a training ground for hijackers. Coincidence?

A month from now we'll know a lot more. If you don't want to heed my adivce that's fine, but I will make it my personal goal to make sure that you look like an idiot, at the possible expense of the patience of our readership.

Lastly, I am not a Bush supporter. I watch about 4 hours of Fox news per week, amongst the roughly 30 hours of news I watch per week.

30 hours a week my ass...more like 90. :)

The article you posted has cast a lot of doubt in my mind about Iraq. Before the war, I though Iraq certainly had WMDs. Part of my objection to the war was that Iraq would chem/bio weapons against our troops, and that large numbers of civilians would be killed by this. As the war went on, and we sacked Baghdad, I could not believe that Iraq would not have used their only ace in the hole. As the entire country fell, and our inspections teams went in - unemcumbered - I started to think that - maybe Kamal Hussein was right, maybe they did destroy their WMD program.

Now, I still have a hard time believing that a military would not use it's ace in the hole - especially when the end was obviously nigh. The iraqi papers don't really say anything conclusive, but they are contributing to the mounting doubt that I have about whether or not Iraq possessed WMDs.

As the article states, "Many other questions remain. For example, the notes do not prove:"
[list]
[*]Whether any documents related to weapons of mass destruction were found as a result of the Mukhabarat's orders or were moved to agents' homes.
[*]Whether other Iraqi government agencies were undertaking similar discussions and planning relating to the U.N. weapons inspectors.
[*]Whether other Iraqi government agencies were undertaking similar discussions and planning relating to the U.N. weapons inspectors.
[*]Whether the Iraqi government possessed any weapons of mass destruction or might merely have been concerned about other embarrassing documents that could cause problems.
[/list]

I would like to know, one way or another, but I think that this is going to be an issue that will never be resolved.

I still feel that this war will cause more problems in the long run than it solved in the short - term.

the OBL connection was considered impossible by the anti-war folks only about a month ago

People thought that OBL would not want to work with Saddam Hussein because Saddam Hussein was a secular infidel that suppressed the Shias and the Kurds while he lived in the lap of luxury. According to the document you cited, Iraq was courting Bin Laden, not the other way around.

People thought that Saddam Hussein would not give WMDs to terrorists like OBL - because of the possibility that the terrorists might turn them against Saddam.

if you recall, was when OBL suddenly focused attacks on the US

Yes, but he was vocally calling for a jihad against America since shortly after the first Gulf War.

It was the year when the Taliban went completely pro-OBL

The Taliban were never anti-OBL. The Taliban were not in Iraq, either. Much of the Taliban was made up of ex-mujahadeen and people that fought with OBL. It is not surprising that they would support him.

One of the early findings in Iraq was a airplane fuselage mockup - a training ground for hijackers. Coincidence?

I don't think it is a coincidence. I think Iraq was training troops and Fedeyeen in unconventional tactics. I would not be surprised if those tactics include terrorism or counterterrorism. The terrorists that hijacked the planes on 9-11 trained in America - at flight schools here. Does that mean that we support terrorism?

I am not naive. I think Saddam did support terrorists. But I also think that fighting terrorism by invading countries is like removing cancer with a baseball bat. If we don;t look at the cause's these people have for hating us, we will never be able to destroy all the places where terrorists can train, and all the people willing to kill us.

I will make it my personal goal to make sure that you look like an idiot

Good to see I have a new enemy. :).

I apologize for calling you a Bush supporter. I cannot stomach Faux News - and I definitely could not stomach 4 hours of it. But if you are only getting your news from the cable networks, keep in mind that they are only presenting about 50% of the picture. There are a lot of other things that are happening that never get covered by the corporate media.

Here is what British Intelligence says about the links between OBL and Saddam Hussein.

Originally posted by joemama
I cannot stomach Faux News - and I definitely could not stomach 4 hours of it.

I only watched a smidge of news last week, mostly MSNBC. But I make it a point to watch some Fox News each week. Even though it's laughable at times, it's important to me to get another side of the media machine.

Actually, I feel so relaxed now that I've been out of the media loop for over a week. I should do that more often...I find that half the stuff in the news is just crap anyway.

My post from 20 days ago where I point out that WMD use was only one of a number of things that was expected but didn't happen.

I have never voted for a Bush for any office, but I might in 2004. I'm very uncommitted. Time will tell.

Sometimes, I find that it's easier to convince someone of your points if you're as succinct as possible. The reason for this is that the more someone has to read, the more they have to remember. And eventually they just stop trying to remember everything you said because it's too much.

Just a tip. :)

I was a news junkie until a few years ago. I finally got tired of being pissed off about things I couldn't do anything about. Enjoyed being fat, dumb and happy but like all junkies I started to crawl back for a fix after a year or so. Inquiring minds want to know.

Al Qaeda-tied terrorist nabbed in Iraq

Senior Bush administration officials Tuesday said a member of an al Qaeda-affiliated terror group operating in Iraq has been captured by U.S. forces.

Sources said the individual is a member of a group operating in western Baghdad under the leadership of Abu Musab al Zarqawi, a Jordanian believed by the United States to have been the mastermind behind the assassination of American diplomat Lawrence Foley in Amman last October.

Lies.. all lies!!

From the article:

<i>"Administration officials say they do not know yet whether the newly captured individual -- as yet not named by U.S. officials -- had any connections with the government of Iraq. "</i>

It is amazing how credulous you guys are.

Let me break down the story for you.

The first 8 paragraphs outline the backstory and the horrible nature of Abu Musab al Zarqawi. If a person was not critically reading - and simply scanning the article, one might think that Zarqawi had been captured, and that the Al Qaeda, Iraq connections had been confirmed.

If you actually read the article, you find out that the guy they captured - who was not named - who is said to be a member of a group operating in western Baghdad - which is reportedly under the leadership of Abu Musab al Zarqawi - has been captured.

So a guy that works for an organization that might be lead by a foreign national that was briefly in Iraq a few years ago is definitive proof that Iraq and Al Qaeda were in bed together.

If your burden of proof is this low, I guess anything will convince you.

The U.S. is working with terrorist groups, again. Our glorious leaders signed a ceasefire agreement with an Iranian opposition group that the United States lists as a terrorist organization. I thought we were supposed to be fighting the war on terror - not cooperating with terrorists.

from the article:

It had a history of violence against Americans. It supported the takeover of the US Embassy in Tehran in 1979 and killed several US military and civilian officials in the 1970s. But the group developed a significant following in Congress for its opposition to Iranian fundamentalism.

Last November 150 US congressmen signed a petition urging the Bush Administration to remove the organisation, which is led by a woman and has an estimated 10,000 members in Iraq, from the US terrorist list.



My point with bringing this into the discussion is, we - as a country - see a very selective picture of the world. Our media is saturated with pro-American dogma that highlights our good points, downplays our bad points, uncritically reports anything the administration releases, and refuses to report "off message" news.

I think it is a dangerous idea for us to support or ignore the activity of one terrorist group because they happen to have one of our goals as their own - if we are trying to end terrorism. Didn't we learn not to work with terrorists in Afghanistan?

I think it is a dangerous idea for us to support or ignore the activity of one terrorist group because they happen to have one of our goals as their own -

Why not, that's the way we elect our politicians.

But that's how it works with intel; you look for things that quack and if you have enough of them you have to assume you have ducks. Because not only is the other side not talking, they're actively trying to hide the information and throw off the scent.

If you have intercepts of people explaining how to get rid of the evidence that they have WMD, although it would never stand in a court situation, for certain equations you HAVE to assume it is true because you have to figure a worst case.

In theory, North Korea doesn't have nukes. They haven't tested one, right? You could never prove to a court that they do have them, but nobody's actually operating by that theory because it would be insane to do so.

So when Saddam supports Hamas and Hezbollah and al Fatah and Abu Nidal "commits suicide" in Baghdad and soldiers find $1B in US currency and there are al Qaeda documents and al Qaeda invitations and al Queda training camps in the north with al Qaeda manuals on how to create chemical weapons, and suddenly an actual al Qaeda thug turns up in the middle of it, the next question is... how many ducks have to quack here?

Originally posted by Undertoad
But that's how it works with intel; you look for things that quack and if you have enough of them you have to assume you have ducks.

Abu Nidal, the most dangerous terrorist of his time, received medical treatment in the US including surgery in Boston. IRA obtained most financing and weapons from the US. Much of the technology used by S Africa to create nuclear and biological weapons came from the US. It quacks like a duck. Therefore the US is a terrorist nation.

Using UT logic, then most any nation can be proven to be a terrorist nation. But then he tends, lately, to emphasis any fact that meets his conclusions.

Back we go to the aluminim tubes. Even the US government stopped trying to prove they were for a nuclear program. To make his point, UT must reject any suggestion that they were used for missile reverse engineering. Even the George Jr administration stopped trying to counter that argument . And they routinely seek the most mundance fact to prove their agenda.

But then he tends, lately, to emphasis any fact that meets his conclusions.

Of course, we are left to do that sort of thing on items that are still up for opinion. For the items not still up for opinion, such as how long the war will take, how many casualties it will cause, and what we will find after, my record is simply outstanding. And everyone else was presenting a muddle of what-ifs that never happened, including yourself.

(This is part of my week of statements of undiplomatic bravado, which I feel I should be permitted, one week per year. I hope this time period does not discourage others from posting.)

Of course, we are left to do that sort of thing on items that are still up for opinion.

Some things are not really up for opinion. Specious arguments presented to the public as proof - then later disproven - do not tend to create an overwhelming positive interpretation of items of evidence.

Furthermore, when you control the narrative, it is easy make the facts and history fit your point of view. Most of the right insitsted that Iraq would surrender without a fight - and the people would cheer our arrival. It turns out that Iraq put up a stronger fight than expected, and the cheering crowd was little more than a photo op edited to make a few hundred look like a few thousand.

The hawks said that the precision guided missiles were so much better now than ten years ago, but they ended up killing thousands of civilians anyway.

Most people on the anti-war end of the left thought that there would be far more civilian casualties than there were, but that is because most of us assumed that Iraq actually had SOME NBC weapons. I was surprised that they had used none, and I don't buy that they would have destroyed a potent weapon when the enemy was at the gate. People also remembered that the vast majority of the deaths from the last Gulf War were from post-conflict disease, and infrastructure damage. We still don't know the final death toll, but we do know that at least 2000 civilians have been killed, thousands more have been maimed.

I am sure that you were vindicated by your version of the story UnderToad. It is nice to know that believing in Santa Clause is still possible when you are an adult.

Yes, I'm sure it was the anti-war's careful and studied opinion of the military that led Ms Garafolo to wring her hands over 500,000 possible civilian casualties. Of course if she had wrung her hands over a lower number, her ad might not have had such punch. And now that the actual number is actually even lower than Saddam's regime would have effectively killed during the same time period as the war, some people should be wondering where the hell they dropped their moral compass.

But follow me now -- if, as you say, the anti-war folks believed that Saddam DID have NBC, AND believed that his possible use of them would lead to higher civilian casualties, you're simultaneously admitting that the inspections were a farce AND that Saddam was so irrational as to detonate WMD in a city or otherwise kill a huge number of his own people.

Either of which, alone, would be excellent grounds to go to war.

Now, I know this stuff is hard, but you really shouldn't be offering up softballs like that. As far as vindication goes, no, despite what I said earlier I really don't think of this as a competition. Nor do I think I'm a better person if I happen to get something right. It's far more interesting just to see who thinks what and why.

Tony Blair just said what I said about a month ago.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,85579,00.html

Anyone who believes Saddam Hussein possessed no weapons of mass destruction will be left "eating some of their words" when the banned arms are found, Prime Minister Tony Blair predicted Wednesday.

So rant about lack of WMD findings all you like; just stick around long enough to take yer ass-whuppin'. (I'm here no matter what, and all too ready to accept a beatdown if I blew it.)

We may not find them. Saddam was/is a despot but not stupid. He knew he couldn't beat us even if he had an atomic (dating myself) bomb. I'm sure he made escape plans in advance. The last I read he went to Belarus. Anyway, exporting and/or destroying his WOMD's would help elicit sympathy and possibly jihad. We will probably find enough evidence to prove he had the capability, but the weapons themselves, probably not.

The WMDs could very well be reaching terrorist hands right now. Saddam didn't have any motivation to arm terrorists when he had a country. Now he does, unless he's in little bitty pieces. If thats the case, the individuals who had the WMDs in their power now have a very marketable resource. Saudi oil money can buy a lot...

Saddam Hussein did not have to actively give terrorists anything. The U.S. let looters run through the country and take anything they could get their hands on - including the Iraqi radioactive waste repository. But this still does not matter since we really waged war on Iraq because of oil. But even that does not matter since apparently Saddam destroyed his only ace in the hole shortly before the war started.



I don't understand how you can justify this shifting rationale. If the administrations of Blair and Bush can lie to you to start a war. Lie about securing Iraq after the war. Lie about why we even fought a war... How in the hell can you believe that the WMDs that they will undoubtedly find - were actually there?

These people are willing to lie about tax cuts, environmental impact, national security, 9-11, Iraq, and the war on terror. How can you trust anything they say or do?

Yes, all politicicians lie, but they shoudl be held accountable when they lie - NOT PRAISED BLINDLY BY SHEEP!

The "shifting rationales" are a media creation, just like the "quagmire" that happened after one week of war.

The U.S. let looters run through the country and take anything they could get their hands on

Your right. We should have machine gunned those damn civilians.
That would have made Ms Garafolo correct.:rattat:

It seems to me that the COW was unprepared for the widespread looting...at least on the scale that it occurred.

They allowed the looting of the palaces. The looting at the museum was vastly overstated at the start; it turns out that a lot of the material was stashed away in private homes in anticipation of the war.

UT, I've heard that also, but haven't found any follow-ups. Got any links?

-sm

I am talking more specifically about the LOOTING OF THE RADIOACTIVE WASTE REPOSITORY - AS IN THE ARTICLE I LINKED (damn cellar needs to color their links)

Here

The term "dirty bomb" springs to mind.

I was also talking about the looting of the hospitals

Here

Now both sets of looting tend to indicate a bit of a lax attitude about maintaining security in Iraq shortly after the shooting war ended. But what is really telling about our aims in Iraq - is that we had the forethought to protect the ministry of oil.

We should not shoot the looters - or the protestors as we did here.

But we should have tried to prohibit SOME looting. Troops were just looking the other way as the country got trashed.

that led Ms Garafolo to wring her hands over 500,000 possible civilian casualties

I love that you through out a straw progressive as a spokesperson for all progressives everywhere. I can then assume that all republicans hold Kelsey Grammer and Jason Priestly's point of view on all issues. Lame.

Jeanine is very passionate, but she really does not have the best grasp of history or a great proclivity for rhetorical mudslinging - but of course that is why the Rethugnican media toss her on the air. They stack her up against generals, professional pundits, and right-wing "scholars" so that the folks at home can marvel at how well the other guests tear apart Garafolo's arguments. Though I love her dearly and I agree with her take on most of this, I feel that she was not adequately prepared to fight off the onslaught of the right-wing media.

If they would have put someone like Chalmers Johnson, Ralph Nader, or Noam Chomsky on to argue the opposing point of view, the audience would have seen a more complex arrangement of the possible pitfalls of the war with Iraq.

Massive civilian casualties was simply one of many possible negative scenarios.


Here are some more


The whole point was, the risk was pretty high that the outcome may put us at more risk than the action. We all knew that 9-11 was really payback for Iraq/Saudi Arabia/Palestine. It is only a matter of time before another such attack occurs (unless of course BushCo actually knew much more than they say they did - and they allowed 9-11 to happen [I hope not]). We did not want Iraq to end up being a cause for rallying the terrorist sentiment throughout the Muslim worlds. We were also leery about spending enormous GOBS of money providing contracts for Bechtel and Halliburton - while our economy is running at a deficit. We were leery about taking on 2 nation building tasks in rabidly Muslim - anti-American countries like Afghanistan and Iraq.

We were upset that Bush needed to lie to have his war. We were upset that Bush dismissed the rest of the world to pursue his war. We were upset that Iraq's NBC weapons - if he had any - would have been sold to the highest bidder BECAUSE we were going to attack. We were upset that Bush never seemed to be aware of any other concern - than his specious argument for war.

In the first gulf war, at leapt 100,000 civilians eventually died. Most of the dead came from disease exacerbated by Iraq's destroyed infrastructure. If Iraq used the NBC weapons Bush said he had, the death toll could easily have topped 500,000. Baghdad is a city of 5 million.

And now that the actual number is actually even lower than Saddam's regime would have effectively killed during the same time period as the war, some people should be wondering where the hell they dropped their moral compass.

You don't know that yet. The Iraq occupation has just begun and more people are still dying. If the Shias decide to rise up in protest of our lack of enthusiasm for their desires for autonomy, we will see more deaths. If the Kurds get squirrelly, you might see Turkey want to fight.

You are crowing about the one thing in this war that everybody on every side agreed would happen. We all knew the U. S. would trounce Saddam's troops like Oscar De La Hoya beating down a local grade school bully.

the anti-war folks believed that Saddam DID have NBC

You see, unlike the right-wing peanut gallery, many of us actually researched the issue and we did not all agree upon the same reason for not going to war. Many different people presented many different reasons why war with Iraq might be a bad idea.

I personally do not feel that the few hyper-industrialized states should be the only states to be able to maintain stockpiles of NBC weapons. I think that states like Iraq should not be allowed to possess nuclear arms - but that is only because it is an actual weapon of mass destruction ( unlike bio and chem weapons). I do not think it is a reasonable to wage a war for chemical or bio weapons - since the weapons can be manufactured anywhere and they are militarily ineffective. The chemical weapons - would have killed a lot of innocent people if they were deployed, and I did not think this was worth the risk.

I thought the inspections should have been allowed to continue - and that as the inspectors found materials, they would continue to destroy them. If Iraq challenged the issue, then I think the UNSC would have authorized force and we would be splitting the bill for Iraq - while maintaining international credibility.

Admittedly this is an imperfect solution to a problem we started in the first place, but it would have allowed us to maintain some semblance of credibility, justification, and legitimacy. It would also have kept the burden of Iraq out of the debts of our children and grandchildren.

Either of which, alone, would be excellent grounds to go to war

Spoken like a man who has never seen a war. I am not saying that I am a box of experience either, but from what I have seen and read in my limited scope, war is a pretty shitty experience. It hardly ever turns out in the way people anticipate, and it has costs in treasure and blood that can be immense. I do not think that we should be launching war with another nation unless they prove to be an actual, imminent threat - as outlined by the founders of this country. Iraq was no imminent or actual threat.

I think you drank a little too much of uncle Karl's kool aid.

It's far more interesting just to see who thinks what and why.

I agree wholeheartedly. None of what we say really matters. I hope I don't seem overly adversarial. My wife tells me I get too upset about this shit.

Bottom line: I think Bush sold this war as one thing, executed it as another, then gloated about it as something else still. I do not think the Secretary of State should lie to the U.N. I do not think a president should used known forgeries as a reason to start a war. I do not like the way that Bush is trying to insinuate that "Since I wuz raaaaight 'bout EYE rak, Im raaaight 'bout the jobsngrowth tax cut."

I am sorry if a sometimes seem a little shrill.

Overstating the looting

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/01/international/worldspecial/01MUSE.html

BAGHDAD, Iraq, April 30 — Even though many irreplaceable antiquities were looted from the National Museum of Iraq during the chaotic fall of Baghdad last month, museum officials and American investigators now say the losses seem to be less severe than originally thought.

Col. Matthew F. Bogdanos, a Marine reservist who is investigating the looting and is stationed at the museum, said museum officials had given him a list of 29 artifacts that were definitely missing. But since then, 4 items — ivory objects from the eighth century B.C. — had been traced.

"Twenty-five pieces is not the same as 170,000," said Colonel Bogdanos, who in civilian life is an assistant Manhattan district attorney.

Scott, you really don't improve your case when you continue to post the pre-war hysterics that didn't happen, especially in your pre-war hysterical voice.

And now that the actual number is actually even lower than Saddam's regime would have effectively killed during the same time period as the war,

You don't know that yet.

The left used to be against torture, summary execution, totalitarialism, etc. Now they make excuses for it.

And it's disgusting and foul, and I'm calling you on it.

Look at yourself. The delight of the Iraqi people is invisible to you, as are the almost-daily discoveries of the mass graves and torture chambers of the Hussein era.

You are believing every negative media report you hear in a desperate struggle to paint the US as the bad guys. The media is more than happy to paint every negative thing that happens in glorious colors for you. You lap it up with delight.

You have come to believe that there is a possibility of further violence that will lead to a greater number of civilian deaths than has happened so far. All I can say is: wow. Wow. The WAR part that you feared so well is DONE now and none of the shit you thought would go down did go down, but you still want to find the disaster that you are certain is just around the corner.

And they say the pro-war people are bloodthirsty.

All I can say is: put your money down, sucker... what odds will you give me?

Originally posted by Undertoad
The left used to be against torture, summary execution, totalitarialism, etc. Now they make excuses for it.

You made a comment similar to this on March 27th.

And I am going to reply with the same thing I did before: That's an awfully broad brush you're using, don't you think?

You have some folks on the left that are making this more about a vendetta against Bush than about being against an Iraqi war. Sure...some folks would like nothing more than to see Bush fail. The last thing I wanted to see is the US fuck up in this war, b/c of our standing in the world (real or perceived). Overall, I'd give him a C+/B- on the war...how the aftermath is handled could make that grade rise or fall.

I am of the left. I am against torture, summary execution, and totalitarianism. But I also agree with what Griff stated on April 10th. And even if most of the looting was done at the palaces, imagine how much money could have been raised by putting all those items on display (either at the palaces or on tours to art museums)? Oil doesn't last forever, art--if carefully preserved--can.

Sorry, but I feel the "I told you so" in the distance, and I think many of the concerns raised from pre-war to now--even if they did not come to fruition--were/are legitimate.

Are you really a leftist? I thought you were more towards the center?

Nah, he's lefty. Dumb bastard.

I wouldn't say that I am a leftist...more like a realistic liberal. I'm generally pro-business and pro-guns, but other than that, I'm pretty much on the left on most other things.

I know we're beating some old ground here, but Scott hasn't seen it and I'm tired of coming up with new analogies and bon mots for stuff we've already gone over. And over.

Now I'm a little confused, though, because

I am of the left.

but

I wouldn't say that I am a leftist...

I'm not sure what to draw from this. But I guess it gives me a free out: hey man, I wasn't talking about YOU, I was talking about LEFTISTS.

On the matter of "I told you so", this is part of being thick-headed and trying to walk a thin line: I'm not very perceptive and so I generally don't know when I'm being an asshole. The other part is Scott's missing our history, I think; I want to say look, dammit, I said all this last October and December and February.

Originally posted by sycamore

I am of the left. I am against torture, summary execution, and totalitarianism.

"of the" meaning educated by/ majority of thought naturally derived from the left?

I don't think we want to link torture etc.. with the right. We prolly agree that those are indicative of authoritarian regimes both left and right.

Now both sets of looting tend to indicate a bit of a lax attitude about maintaining security in Iraq shortly after the shooting war ended.

Is the shooting war over?
It sure wasn't when the looting was at it's peak.
This wasn't the kind of war where there is a "behind our lines". Not when combatants change clothes and hide their RPG's.

Originally posted by Undertoad
hey man, I wasn't talking about YOU, I was talking about LEFTISTS.

Sorry buddy...you specifically said "the left" in your last quote...nice try though. :)

Griff...to answer your question, yeah, that pretty much sums it up well. Don't think I was trying to associate torture, etc. with the right--I do think the left has taken a more pointed stance towards it, but in the end, I think both sides oppose it...and support it when convenient or deemed necessary.

Sheppsie, I try to make a distinction between being of the left and being a leftist. It may sound silly, but the term "leftist" to me suggests an extreme asshead, a la some of those wacky protestors in San Francisco, some Greenpeace types, or some of those that protest G8/WTO/IMF gatherings.

Riight. And I'm "of the south", but that doesn't mean I'm a southerner. Hey, I try to make that distinction.

Isn't it more important "where you're at" than "where you're coming from"? I think the latter requires reading between the lines which might not be accurate.;)

Originally posted by juju
Riight. And I'm "of the south", but that doesn't mean I'm a southerner.

Yes you are...a big dumb hillbilly southerner.

You're just mad because I'm using your own logic against you.

Are all big-city folk so bitter and angsty?

Originally posted by juju
You're just mad because I'm using your own logic against you.

Are all big-city folk so bitter and angsty?

Thanks for proving my point--no such word as "angsty," you ass fungus.

(For the record, I'm the most angst-ridden-yet-controlled individual that there is. :) )

Originally posted by sycamore
I wouldn't say that I am a leftist...more like a realistic liberal. I'm generally pro-business and pro-guns, but other than that, I'm pretty much on the left on most other things.

Watch out syc. You're going to wake up one morning and suddenly have an urge to vote republican ...

Originally posted by wolf
Watch out syc. You're going to wake up one morning and suddenly have an urge to vote republican ...

I've already voted for a Republican (our area's rep in the state legislature), and I'll probably do it again in November (for Sam Katz as mayor...gotta look at his plans though). I have no problem voting for a Republican if I feel he will adequately represent me and my general concerns.

The NYT has more on the museum non-looting:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/06/international/worldspecial/06MUSE.html

"Most Iraqi Treasures Are Said to Be Kept Safe"

A top British Museum official said yesterday that his Iraqi counterparts told him they had largely emptied display cases at the National Museum in Baghdad months before the start of the Iraq war, storing many of the museum's most precious artifacts in secure "repositories."

The official, John E. Curtis, curator of the Near East Collection at the British Museum, who recently visited Iraq, said Baghdad museum officials had taken the action on the orders of Iraqi government authorities. When looting started, most of the treasures apparently remaining in display halls were those too large or bulky to have been moved for protection, Mr. Curtis said.

They further clarify: 25 items are felt to be missing. Twenty-five.

They further clarify: they did the same kind of "safekeeping" operations in 1991. The Iraqi museum curators are no dummies: knowing that they might be bombed, they had plenty of time to take all the good stuff and put it where it would not be damaged.

You're quoting the NYT...are you feeling okay?

I believe that same NYT was the one to write the original article saying that 170,000 items were gone, so this is just rubbing their face in it.

Ah...see, I was thinking that you were using one of the world's most liberal newspapers against a liberal. Why don't you run with that one...it rings of an "Oh schnap!"

Overstating the looting

You really are a silly little monkey aren't you. I specifically was talking about the LOOTING OF THE IRAQI NUCLEAR WASTE REPOSITORY and the LOOTING OF THE IRAQI HOSPITALS. I know it may be hard for you to read and follow a thread, but reiterating an after-the-fact cover story as proof that nothing in Iraq was looted is more bogus crap from a person that seems to thrive on bogus crap.

The antiquities looting was terrible, but I did not think that was too big of a deal. I thought it was stupid of us not to protect the vital public interests and our own security interests in Iraq. Which, of course, you ignored so that you could toss out a red herring.

The left used to be against torture, summary execution, totalitarialism, etc. Now they make excuses for it

Ah, I knew this one would come up. I know it is hard to do, but opposing war is not the same thing as supporting torture any more than sticking up fro the Dixie Chicks makes one a communist or a terrorist. I love black and white thinking. It is so easy to claim the moral high ground when you cannot see the shades of grey.

I did not like Saddam Hussein. I though he was a pipece of garbage and I am glad he is gone. If anything is positive about this, it is that the Iraqi people are free of Saddam Hussein.

But the same thing was said when the coups against Allende, Diem, and Mossadiq took place. The resulting insatability, factionalization, dictatorial control, and suppression of dissent killed millions. Moreover, many of the members of the COW are on Amnesty International's list of worst human rights offenders. Why is it okay for us to ignore their abuses while we attack Iraq for it's abuses? Why did we continue to help Iraq after Saddam gassed the Iranians or the Kurds? Do you really think the Iraqi people were a priority here?

And it's disgusting and foul, and I'm calling you on it.

No, you are making a veiled Ad Hominem attack and sitting up on a high horse of clueless moral certainty. Why don't you get your Rethugnican friends to crack down on all the rest of the human rights abusers of the world - since you just discovered this issue. Why didn't people like you urge the government to remove the sanctions that killed thousands of people but had absolutely no effect on the Iraqi leadership?

Your convenient outrage is troubling.

The delight of the Iraqi people is invisible to you, as are the almost-daily discoveries of the mass graves and torture chambers of the Hussein era.

Look at yourself. Thumping your chest with American pride as you discover what the left has been bitching about for years. The pain of the dead, injured, and the destroyed is invisible to you, as is the weekly bombing of Iraq for the past 12 years and the protests of the Iraqi people against American occupation.

You see the positive images of happy Americans toppling a statue of Saddam while the Iraqis cheer on T.V.. You don't see the down side on American T.V.. You read passive voice descriptions of the events in Iraq in American print. You are seeing a scrubbed and polished version of realilty - which is why you are so blindly exuberant with your unfettered support for this war.

Everybody knew that Saddam Hussein's regime was torturous and cruel. I really and truly hope the Iraqi people do not end up devolving into another type of authoritarian governance. I hope that Iraq will be rebuilt and they will not harbor any long-term ill against America for our alternating support then acrimony against Saddam Hussein. I hope they don't think that we are reallly in Iraq for profit and oil. I hope that there is not a revolt by the Shias against the American occupation troops. I hope that this whole thing ends well.

But the best case scenario is not always the most likely. The numerous downsides were what caused most on the left to oppose the invasion of Iraq.

For the record, I think the military did a good job avoiding massive civilian casualties. I am glad that the Iraqis are free of Saddam Hussein.

I still think we should have helped the Iraqis overthrow Saddam themselves - and choose their own destiny - but what do I know?

You are believing every negative media report you hear in a desperate struggle to paint the US as the bad guys.

You are believing every positive media report you hear in a desperate struggle to paint the US as the good guys.

The media is more than happy to paint every negative thing that happens in glorious colors for you.

What media?!?!?! The American media has bee overwhelmingly positive about anything Bush wants. If Bush took a crap in a box the media would call it gold. I think you are one of the delusional Fox viewers that consider anything less than absolutely glowing treatement of the war as tantamount to treason.

DId you see any of the pictures of dead Iraqi children - killed by American bomb blasts on Fox? Did you see the burned babies on MSNBC? Did you see half the bad shit that happened in Iraq? NO! If you only watched the American media, you saw a scrubbed down version of events full of rationalization, uncritical stenography of the military perspective, and senseless jingoism.

You lap it up with delight.

You are a real tool. I don't relish the notion of American failure. I don't want to see blowback from this 10 years from now. I don't like the idea that we SECURED THE MINISTRY OF OIL BUT LEFT EVERYTHING ELSE FOR THE LOOTERS!!! I don't want to see Americans or Iraqis killed. You are a sick, sick moron for making such a suggestion. I am not surprised, though. This is a typical Rush. rethugnican attack strategy.

The WAR part that you feared so well is DONE now and none of the shit you thought would go down did go down

We are in act 2 of a 20 act play. Everybody said that the war would be the easy part. I don't even know why I am trying to explain this to you for the 50th time. NOBODY SAID WE WOULD NOT WIN!!! The only thing that did not happen was the 500,000 dead that Jeanine Garafolo cited. I guess you cannot see beyond her estimate ( which came from the U.N. and considered the primary causes of death to be disease and malnutrition after the bombs stopped falling ). I know it is hard to think about the long-term, but we are just now embarking on the hard part of this war.

But I guess since Bush said that evrything is now hunky-dory, I guess it must be.

you still want to find the disaster that you are certain is just around the corner

You have a one news cycle memory. I am glad your rose colored glasses keep any negative effects off your radar and out of mind alltogether. I wish I could have such blind faith and trust in our Fuhrer.

And they say the pro-war people are bloodthirsty.

No, I think you are ignorant. Not bloodthirsty.

Saddam is estimated to have killed at least 1.5M of his own people since coming to power in 1979. An average of 62,500 dead Iraqi civilians per year, 1,202 per week.

The Three Weeks War appears to have cost the lives of a whopping 2,356 Iraqi civilians by the highest of estimates, as contrasted with the expected 3,606 who would have perished if we had left Saddam's regime alone.

And you're suddenly unhappy because you didn't see any of those 2,356 on TV over the last couple weeks. Well, tell you what... I don't recall seeing ANY of those 1,500,000 on TV. They were inconvenient -- inconvenient to Saddam, so they were inconvenient to French oil companies, so they were inconvenient to world politics.

They were convenient to US war plans, so they were inconvient to a generally left-oriented press. CNN admitted that they failed to report some really incredibly terrible things about the regime in order to maintain their status in Baghdad.

Well, I take it back -- we did see some of those 1,500,000 on TV last week. When they started finding the mass graves.

In light of all this, your concern for the "vital public interests" of Iraq is absolutely mind-boggling. 1,500,000 dead: not vital, I guess. Just a darn shame, apparently.

And as for the nuke materials, I find it hilarious -- REALLY! -- that you think such things were permissible and entirely safe from "looting" or winding up in the hands of terrorists while the country was under Saddam. If they weren't safe, the UN would have found them, right? The old story is that they don't exist and aren't cause for going to war; why don't you just stick with that story?

Your weekly average includes the Kurds in Halabja and the Shia that rose up after Gulf War 1, and (more than the first 2 numbers combined) the deaths of Iraqis due to sanctions.

We were friends with Saddam in 1988 - When Halabja happened. Rumsfeld made deals with Saddam Hussein shortly thereafter. We ignored the Shia's suffering when Iraq quelled their rebellion. We moved the U.N. to impose the sanctions upon Iraq and we ignored international cries for a repeal of sanctions.

You are right that the news never covered any of this. The Left - wing and independent press covered the hell out of it, but the corporate media were more interested in covering Willie Brown, Dukakis, Bill Clinton's penis, etc.

The Three Weeks War appears to have cost the lives of a whopping 2,356 Iraqi civilians by the highest of estimates, as contrasted with the expected 3,606 who would have perished if we had left Saddam's regime alone.

Equivocation of Terms fallacy. The civilian deaths you cited are just the bombing deaths - deaths from disease, exposure to depleted uranium, lack of water, etc are not included in this number. You seem to think that Iraq had a killing quota of 1202 people a week. This is not true - and the killing that was done was done by more than just Saddam Hussein and a few of his minions. More than that, the 1.5 million number is a misuse of a real figure for the purposes of manipulation - of people like you.

don't recall seeing ANY of those 1,500,000 on TV. They were inconvenient -- inconvenient to Saddam,

Well, since they would have highlighted the 750,000 children theat died because of our sanctions, yeah - it was damaging to America's interests. The corporate media ignored this because it made us look like cruel bastards - and it would have made Americans ask who was being hurt by the sanctions.

The corporate media did, however, cover a lot of the horror stories about Iraq and they never failed to portray Saddam Hussein in the proper light.

inconvenient to French oil companies

Oh Please. Iraq exported 40% of it's oil to the U.S.. It only exported about 8% of it's oil to France. You are freakin stupid - don't you ever question any of the crap you see on O'Reilly or Savage? France's debt load with Iraq was 1.5 billion. Of which they could not collect anything since Iraq had to pay Kuwait and the U.N. before it started paying other nations like Russia, Germany, and France.

They were convenient to US war plans, so they were inconvient to a generally left-oriented press

Do you even read what you type?!?!?!?! This same media that never reported the deaths in Iraq - decided to start reporting about the deaths in Halabja and the atrocities when the GOVERNMENT decided that it wanted to pursue a war. The media did not start claiming the 1.5 million iraqi deaths number until Rummy said something about it.

Were you watching T.V. during the war?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?! How in the FUCK can you honestly say that that media is generally left oriented? They never really questioned anything the administraiton said. They used passive voice in every headline to keep up the appearances of patriotism. They contributed to the vilification of dissent. They stacked generals and politicicans on the right - against COMICS??!?! And you really think there is a "librul" media?

I think, when you live in a hole, someone can light a match and you think it is the sun. You don't know how little the matchlight was unless you get out of the hole and see the sun for yourself. If you already think the media must be liberal - because you have been told that it is SOOOOOOO many times, I do not think you could see anything but a liberal media.

If I were you I would compare and contrast your American news sources with the BBC, the Guardian, the Independent, etc. Then compare the "librul media" to newsmax, tech central station, or GOPUSA. You will see something striking. You will see that the corporate media presents the right-wing perspective faaaar more often than it presents the left wing perspective.

that you think such things were permissible and entirely safe from "looting" or winding up in the hands of terrorists while the country was under Saddam.

Well, it was safe and monitored by the U.N. and the IAEA for years. I don't recall any terrorists using Iraqi nuclear waste in a bomb, do you? Since the IAEA know the isotopic ratios of the waste in Iraq, it would be fairly easy to determine whether a dirty bomb got it's materials from Iraq. Why would Saddam Hussein give terrorists something that would trace right back to him?

If they weren't safe, the UN would have found them, right?

They did, you dick. NUCLEAR WASTE is not fissile. It could not be made into a nuclear bomb.

This was the waste from the Osirak reactor. You see, this stuff stays radioactive for about 10,000 years, so the Iraqis had to store it somewhere. The IAEA knew about it. The U.N. knew about it.

The old story is that they don't exist and aren't cause for going to war

You are about as dumb as a bag of hammers. YOU CANNOT MAKE A NUCLEAR BOMB WITH NUCLEAR WASTE!!!!!!!

The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure

AND make personal attacks on people that don't agree with them.:shotgun:

Scott, if you can't get through writing your messages without including all kinds of name-calling and punctuation farts, perhaps the Cellar is not the message board for you.

ScottSolomon: Now that this has in fact happened, what would you do to rebuild Iraq, to make the best of this situation? What do we need to do to reverse any damage done? I'm looking for practical, pragmatic answers to fix this.

One of the points you brought up is the article was about Blair stating the war was all about oil. The article states that an environmentalist advisor made the comment, and that opposition members are saying the war was about oil. Regardless of whether the premise is true or not, I think the sources quoted are a bit suspect. The article states Blair wants the oil held in a UN trust for the Iraqi people, and Powell is stated as saying he'd like to give the money to the Iraqis.

I don't trust Bush, or all the reasons that we invaded Iraq for. I feel I'm little in the dark as to everything that happened and the reasons for it. I'm watching this bonus round action with trepidation.

AND make personal attacks on people that don't agree with them

I was not making personal attacks simply because he do not agree with me. I was making personal attacks at him because he was reiterating a misused statistic to make a specious argument. What is worse is that he did not even know that the statistic was misused.

I was not trying to be mean to UnderToad. I was just trying to get through. I apologize if I offended you, UT.

ScottSolomon: Now that this has in fact happened, what would you do to rebuild Iraq

What, since the past is past, we should not worry about it? Look onward, 'cause there is nothing to see here in the present or the past. Well, those who are ignorant of history are bound to repeat it.

What I would do, is bring in the world. I would bring in U.N. peacekeeping troops and I would bring together a ministry of Iraqi leaders from within the country - not a bunch of outsiders. I would do my best to reestablish some sense of order - but acting too tough would backfire, so I have to be open aout everything. I would create shell corporations made up of Iraqi oil engineers and temporary managers - and I would establish a training system to bring up Iraqi management. I would replicate this throughout Iraq's nationalized industries. I would hire work crews in the thousands to do nothing but clean up and repair the damage. I would make sure the people had electricity, water, and security.

But I would make the whole thing an international effort. I would put together a citizen oversight commitee to look out for the interests of the Iraqis.

I will probably fail and I may have many major setbacks. I may have to suppress a revolution or sniff out a clandestine coup. I may be finally expelled as Iraq falls into chaos.

Blair wants the oil held in a UN trust for the Iraqi people

Don't think of oil in such a pedestrian fashion. I don't know if this is just intellectual dishonesty or if this is what you actually think, but oil is much more than a simple commodity. This war had much more to do with oil as a weapon than oil as a product.

Oil drives western industry. It's cost is felt everywhere. Every product you buy has a small charge tacked on for the oil needed in the plastic or the fuel needed for transport, or the lubrication on the truck's axle. This is so much so - that every 1 dollar shift downward in the price of a barrel of oil has as much impact on the economy as a 100 billion dollar tax cut. Oil is essential for defense. Every military in the world must have an enormous supply of oil in order to wage war. Which is where our good Fuhrer comes in.

The United States is an empire. Like it or not, for the past 50 years we have military bases girding the world in a ring of steel. We force our version of capitalism onto developing nations in order for them to get support. In the process we secure valuable natural wealth at rock bottom prices. We have the largest defense budget in the world. We defy or uphold treaties without consequence. We act with impunity and we have made it known to the world that they can be cast aside when they are no longer politically expedient.

We have got a great thing going, now. However, the future is not certain. The European Union is emerging as an economic powerhouse. Iraq shifted it's currency for oil transactions to Euros, and it would be disasterous if OPEC also made the shift. It would create a worldwide shift away from the dollar as the international currency of choice. China is also a rising power. It's oil cunsumption and desire for growth are becoming voracious. In order to grow beyond it's current level, it must make drastic increases in its level of energy procurement. This is where we come in.

If we have our hand on the spigot of Iraq, and we keep a tight leash on the ruling class of Saudi Arabia - who need our support to maintain their fragile hold on their country - we have a very effective negotiations tool to keep our rich people at the poker table with their rich people. This is why wars are fought.

You can make arguments that this is a good situation and you can make arguments that this is bad. But make no mistake, this war was most certainly fought for oil.

You sound a bit angry, and your world view has no joy in it at all. There is a saying, and I'm not sure where I heard it, but I believe it as I get older: Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to stupidity. I don't see any grand plan behind the US's current status in the world. I am sure Bush has some nebulous ideas, but not beyond that. He'll not be around after the next election.

Scott, I never said that the war was not fought about oil. I don't think it was the sole reason. If by pedestrian you mean that my view on oil is simple, then yes. It's an extremely simple commodity in and of itself. A silly thing to fight over. My view on oil is that it is a very maleable substance. It can finance or destroy, hurt or heal. It is used most often as a club. We have had it used on us in the past, and if your theory is true, we will use it on Saudi Arabia and France. I suspect France would have developed the fields in Iraq and used it as just such a weapon.


Swiss United Nations troops, as I don't know If I fully trust anyone at this point. They are neutral, or as neutral as you can afford.

Bush is not stupid. He is playing the role of a PR figurehead to a T. I think that the Bush presidency is actually a commitee head by Cheney. The people that surrend the administration, Wolfowitz, Perle, Kagan, Rove, Rumsfeld, Rice, Fleischer, etc. are all very intelligent and they all have a very flexible idea of morality. Many of them made their plans known over the years, and it seems like thie plans have been put into action - the catalyst for it all was 9-11.

I do not think that the administration would mind breaking a few eggs to make their omlette.

Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to stupidity

I do not think a group of well educated people with years of experience could be that stupid.

He'll not be around after the next election.

I will bet you - even if Bush loses - he will not lose. Karl Rove is a master of spin and the media has stopped even attempting to be critical of this Bush. The media have accepted their role as Democrat bashers, so I really doubt any of the Dems will be able to depose his highness.