Powell admits to misleading the public about Iraq-Al Qaeda

[Chris Alger]

Colin Powell, before the UN Security Council on Feb. 5, 2003:

"Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network, headed by Abu Musaab al-Zarqawi, an associate and collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda lieutenants." ...

"Iraqi officials deny accusations of ties with Al Qaeda. These denials are simply not credible." ...

"We are not surprised that Iraq is harboring Zarqawi and his subordinates. This understanding builds on decades-long experience with respect to ties between Iraq and al-Qaeda." ...

"Early al-Qaeda ties were forged by secret high-level intelligence service contacts with al-Qaeda, secret Iraqi intelligence high-level contacts with al-Qaeda." ...

"I can trace the story of a senior terrorist operative telling how Iraq provided training in these weapons [of mass destruction] to al-Qaeda."
________________________

Powell yesterday, quoted by the NY Times, on the connection "between the government of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and terrorists of Al Qaeda":

"I have not seen smoking-gun, concrete evidence about the connection."

So while before the war the absence of a connection was "not credible" Powell now admits that he knew, and still knows, of no "concrete evidence" for it, apparently unconvinced by his own rhetoric.

For Americans trying to decide whether the war was justified, that would have been useful to hear. Probably more useful still to the 8,000 to 9,800 Iraqi civilians killed in order to turn the Iraqi dictatorship into a U.S. dictatorship. At least until we can stage an election for someone at least as committed to U.S. interests as Saddam was at the height of our support for him.

[Utah]

Interesting. Can you post a link to the entire text of the speech? I recall the general tone was that there might be a link and that Powell never said there was absolute proof. Your quote snipets seem to indicate otherwise. However, your snipets could also be out of context. Also, I recall that this tie between the groups was never very convincing and it was never a major reason for going to war. Troubling still.

What I don't understand though is why the anti-war crowd focuses on WMDs and Al Qaeda as the sole or even main arguments for justification for war. The main arguments was that Saddam did not live up to the U.N.resolutions and did not provide the neccessary documentation as to what happened to the weapons that were known to exist. Is was fully in Saddams control to stop the invasion. Additionally, the world was pretty much united that the weapons were there. I do not recall arguments from any govenment before the war saying the weapons did not exist.

I still do not understand you absolute hate for the U.S. How can you possibly compare the former Iraqi dictatorship to a US run government? What do you prefer and what is your proposal?

Your "8,000 dead" analysis is a false one. You have to compare to a baseline of dead and maybe factor is quality of life as well. For some reason, you don't seem to realize that Iraq was an endless killing field filled with torture and terror before the U.S. invasion. How can you casually dismiss that as if Iraqi's lived in peace?

[Gamblor]

Human Rights Watch (http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/iraq0503/iraq0503.pdf) (aside from the fact that it has become a political organization masquerading as a noble cause) has estimated that Hussein has murdered 290,000 Iraq civilians between 1991 and 2003. This number, of course, does not include the millions of Iranians and Persians murdered by various chemical cocktails Hussein served up in the early 80s.

The Associated Press concluded that, after having "canvassed sixty of Iraq's 124 hospitals immediately after the end of major combat operations...at least 3,420 civilians died" (Niko Price "3,240 Civilian Deaths in Iraq," Associated Press, June 10, 2003). Even if, as HRW claims later in the report, that the number is "significantly higher", it is doubtful that AP's journalistic integrity would allow it to claim a number knowing that it had only counted 1/3 of the total, as you claim. Of course, watching the coverage of the Israeli-Arab conflict, I know of their lack of journalistic integrity. Integrity notwithstanding, the left-wing propaganda site, "iraqbodycount.net" is a weak source for the numbers you have provided. The left lies again!

Regardless, let's take both sides of the story: assuming AP are correct, over the 12 years of Hussein's rule, an average of 24,167 Iraqis were murdered by the tyrant. Even taking the blatant lies of IBC as fact, in the year since the war began, a maximum of 10,000 Iraqis were killed (of course, this number includes Baathists ambushing American soldiers as well as insurgent suicide bombers - these are not necessarily civilian deaths), and since major combat operations have ended the annual number of Iraqi civilians dead will shoot downward drastically. I'm sure the 14,000 or so Iraqis spared Saddam's wrath this year are eternally grateful to the US Army. If AP is correct, than 21,000 were saved by the US invasion.

As a side note, perhaps a comparison between Iraqi deaths due to war with US and Palestinian deaths due to war with Israel is in order.

[adios]

Alger is quoting out of context. Why he would do such a thing on this forum where his spin would have little impact on anything I don't know. Anyway here's a link to the AP story and the story in bold:

Powell Refutes Think-Tank Report on Iraq (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=2&u=/ap/20040108/ap_on_re_mi_ea/us_iraq)

Powell Refutes Think-Tank Report on Iraq
Thu Jan 8, 5:03 PM ET Add Top Stories - AP to My Yahoo!


By BARRY SCHWEID, AP Diplomatic Writer

WASHINGTON - Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) acknowledged Thursday that he had seen no "smoking gun, concrete evidence" of ties between Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) and the al-Qaida terror network, but insisted that Iraq (news - web sites) had had dangerous weapons and needed to be disarmed by force.

At a State Department news conference, Powell disagreed with a private think tank report that maintained Iraq had not been an imminent threat to the United States. And the secretary defended the case he had made last February before the United Nations (news - web sites) for a U.S.-led war to force Saddam from power.

"My presentation ... made it clear that we had seen some links and connections to terrorist organizations over time," Powell said. "I have not seen smoking gun, concrete evidence about the connection, but I think the possibility of such connections did exist and it was prudent to consider them at the time that we did."

Three experts at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace said in a report Thursday that the Bush administration systematically misrepresented a weapons threat from Iraq, and U.S. strategy should be revised to eliminate the policy of unilateral preventive war.

"It is unlikely that Iraq could have destroyed, hidden or sent out of the country the hundreds of tons of chemical and biological weapons, dozens of Scud missiles and facilities engaged in the ongoing production of chemical and biological weapons that officials claimed were present without the United States detecting some sign of this activity," said the report by Jessica T. Mathews, Joseph Cirincione and George Perkovich.


Powell noted that Saddam obviously had, and used, destructive weapons in the late 1980s, then refused for a decade to assure the world he'd gotten rid of them.

"In terms of intention, he always had it," Powell said. Of Carnegie's finding that Iraq posed no imminent threat, Powell said: "They did not say it wasn't there."

Iraq's nuclear program had been dismantled and there was no convincing evidence it was being revived, the report said.

And the U.S.-led war on Iraq in 1991 combined with U.N. sanctions and inspections effectively destroyed Iraq's ability to produce chemical weapons on a large scale, it said.

The real threat was posed by what Iraq might have been able to do in the future, such as starting production of biological weapons quickly in the event of war, Carnegie said.


Also, Iraq apparently was expanding its capability to build missiles beyond the range permitted by the U.N. Security Council, the report said. "The missile program appears to have been the one program in active development in 2002," it said.


Years of U.N. inspections to determine whether Saddam was harboring weapons of mass destruction were working well, and the United States should set up jointly with the United Nations a permanent system to guard against the spread of dangerous technology, the report said.


It recommended that consideration be given to making the job of CIA (news - web sites) director a career post instead of a political appointment.


Mathews is president, Cirincione is director of the proliferation project, and Perkovich is vice president for studies at Carnegie, an independent research group.


Citing the CIA and other U.S. intelligence offices, the Bush administration contended that Iraq had caches of weapons of mass destruction and plans to produce more.


The Carnegie report said the U.S. intelligence process failed on Iraq and that Bush administration officials dropped qualifications and expressions of uncertainty presented by U.S. intelligence analysts.


In the weeks before the war, the administration also intensified its allegations of links between Saddam and the al-Qaida terror network headed by Osama bin Laden (news - web sites).

Since May, when Bush declared an end to major combat, 357 U.S. service personnel have died in attacks on them and in accidents.

[andyfox]

"I still do not understand you absolute hate for the U.S. How can you possibly compare the former Iraqi dictatorship to a US run government? What do you prefer and what is your proposal?"

Where do you see hate for the U.S. in this post? I see disgust at a policy that was promulgated based on dissemblance. Mr. Alger long ago posted here that the only basis for U.S. intervention in Iraq would have been on humanitarian grounds based on the ruthlessness of Hussein's rule.

U.S. run governments do not have a good human rights record. They do have a good record of serving U.S. interests. It is evident that the U.S. did not play up the humanitarian aspect of the war because it would have been seen as disingenuous, given that we didn't care about Hussein's human rights record for many years, and that the president's father had already taken some heat for not getting rid of Hussein in the first Gulf War. The humanitarian justification for the war was only brought in after the so-called evidence of the existence of WMDs and the Al-Qaeda link were questioned.

It is a mistake to confuse criticism of a particular foreign policy of our government with hate for our country.

[andyfox]

"Powell disagreed with a private think tank report that maintained Iraq had not been an imminent threat to the United States."

Powell is then also disagreeing with President Bush, who specifically denied that Iraq was an imminent threat to the United States in his State of the Union address.

"'I have not seen smoking gun, concrete evidence about the connection, but I think the possibility of such connections did exist and it was prudent to consider them at the time that we did.'"

No one doubts the prudence of considering such connections. What is called into question is the accuracy of the analysis and whether the presentation of the evidence was misrepresented to the American people.

None of this is unusual. All governments dissemble. A decision was made to go to war and get rid of Hussein. There would be less discussion now had the evidence for Hussein's brutality been presented to us, rather than the less the credible evidence for the existence of WMDs, Hussein's intention to use them, and the purported connection with 9-11. Again, this is something Mr. Alger pointed up in this forum long ago.

[Wake up CALL]

Andy it is pretty entertaining to read your posts, hard to believe you criticize Rush and his circus comment yet defend Alger when he regularly and intentionally attempts to mislead with out of context quotes and rarely provides links.

I think your priorities are in disarray.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

Hindsight is always 20-20. Saddam would have killed a lot more than 9800 of his own people anyway had we let him go on being a jerk, and getting his ugly ass OUT of there is just fine with me. There are some other countries that need the same damn treatment. As for whether iraq is now an american dictatorship, well if your political views are far enough one way you could call president bush pro al qaeda too. No matter WHAT happens, one side will always demonize the other. And when it comes to politics, those demonizations will often be vicious.

al

[Al_Capone_Junior]

[ QUOTE ]
As a side note, perhaps a comparison between Iraqi deaths due to war with US and Palestinian deaths due to war with Israel is in order.


[/ QUOTE ]

Another conflict (and political BS generating factory) I am quite sick of. I am all for israel getting the FK out of the west bank and gaza and giving the palestinians their own state. Of course as soon as they have it then they will probably find some other reason to fight with israel. The whole damn region just isn't happy without death and hatred. they need more to DO on a daily basis besides bake in the desert.

al

[Gamblor]

and giving the palestinians their own state

You mean the state that, in its de facto charter, has vowed to destroy "the Zionist enterprise"?

Or the state that used EU humanitarian aid to import arms (Karine A cargo ship)?

Or the state that would plunge into instant civil war with Hamas, Fateh, Christians and Muslims all fighting for control?

The whole damn region just isn't happy without death and hatred.

Interesting, considering Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom announced that there is no reason why Israel "shouldn't have diplomatic relations with at least 10 Arab nations". Sounds like a warlike nation to me.

It's not political BS for some people - for people like Cyrus and Chris, their involvement is limited to one tenth of one penny on the dollar of their taxes. For me (eventually), and my family, their lives hinge on the results. Not that you should care, but don't rip on people who do care.

[Gamblor]

.S. run governments do not have a good human rights record.

The US is a democracy in which each citizen is entitled to vote as he or she chooses, as well as dissent from the elected government's policy. By virtue of this fact alone, the US's government is an extension of its inhabitants. So either condemn yourself, or realize that by virtue of this fact alone the United States, as a nation, has moral superiority in all actions, in that it is the result of the aggregate choice of its citizens.

[MMMMMM]

"...A decision was made to go to war and get rid of Hussein. There would be less discussion now had the evidence for Hussein's brutality been presented to us, rather than the less the credible evidence for the existence of WMDs, Hussein's intention to use them, and the purported connection with 9-11. Again, this is something Mr. Alger pointed up in this forum long ago."

The evidence of Hussein's brutality WAS presented. Almost everyone knew of this and had a rough idea of the scope as well.

andy, what does it say about the ability of certain persons to reason and to keep in mind the entire picture, when: these persons would have supported the war for humanitarian reasons alone (of which they knew), but ended up opposing the war because they were unsure whether other pro-war arguments were also valid? Even if NO other pro-war arguments were justified cause for war, and ONLY the humanitarian argument justified the war, the fact that other pro-war arguments were raised should not have detracted from the commitment to war of those who would have favored the war solely on humanitarian grounds. Not, I guess, unless they had so little powers of concentration and focus that they could not keep the entire picture in mind at once. It isn't that darn complicated once one acknowledges that humanitarian reasons justified the war. And the humanitarian argumentr was made loud and clear.

[Gamblor]

the existence of WMDs, Hussein's intention to use them, and the purported connection with 9-11. Again, this is something Mr. Alger pointed up in this forum long ago.

So you're prepared to take the risk?

You're a poker player, wise up:

Suppose that pre-War, Bush estimated the likelihood of Hussein having, and eventually using WMDs, and collaboration with Al Qaeda at 10%.

Is it worth the risk - how about if your child was working in the WTC on 9/11?

[Chris Alger]

I get these emails from the State Dept. and received the full text of the press conference this morning (I didn't have it when I posted and relied on the Times article and the State Dept.'s version of Powell's UN address). Here's the full Q &amp; A about Al Qaeda: <ul type="square"> QUESTION: On the subject of weapons of mass destruction, Mr. Secretary, one of the other conclusions of that [Carnegie Endowment] report was that there was no evidence of a connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida and that there was no evidence of a likelihood that he would transfer weapons to al-Qaida.

What do you think about that, looking back? And I know that, you know, hindsight is 20/20, but to think back --

SECRETARY POWELL: My presen --

QUESTION: Do you think that there were ways other than war to have handled this threat and that the -- that it was not an imminent threat to the United States?

SECRETARY POWELL: My presentation on the 5th of February when I talked to this issue made it clear that we had seen some links and connections to terrorist organizations over time, and I focused on one particular case, Zawahiri, and I think that was a pretty solid case.

There is not -- you know, I have not seen smoking-gun, concrete evidence about the connection, but I think the possibility of such connections did exist and it was prudent to consider them at the time that we did.

Were there other ways to solve this problem? I think the President gave the international community every opportunity to solve this problem another way.

The international community gave the Iraqis 12 years to solve this problem any other way.

The President took the case to the international community and said: For 12 years, you have been defied. What are you going to do now? It's time for us to act.

And the President, after a reasonable period of time -- inspectors were still being thwarted, we got an incorrect, ridiculous declaration from the Iraqi Government in response to Resolution 1441 -- and after waiting a sufficient period of time, the President decided he had to act because he believed that whatever the size of the stockpile, whatever one might think about it, he believed that the region was in danger, America was in danger, and he would act and he did act.

And he acted with a large number of countries who felt likewise, and he acted under the authority that we were absolutely sure we had because we negotiated it that way in UN Resolution 1441. [/list]
[ QUOTE ]
The main arguments was that Saddam did not live up to the U.N.resolutions and did not provide the neccessary documentation as to what happened to the weapons that were known to exist. Is was fully in Saddams control to stop the invasion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whether or not they were the "main" arguments they are extremely bad ones. First, in the absence of any immediate threat posed by Iraq that could not be resolved through diplomacy, the war was fundamentally as wrong and immoral as Germany's invasion of Poland or Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.

Second, nothing in UNSCR 1441 (or any of the prior resolutions during the "12 years" of U.S. patience that Powell proclaims) authorized the U.S. to take unilateral action. 1441 provided that the Security Council <ul type="square"> Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above [material omissions or obstruction with inspectors], in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security; [and] Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations." [/list]Third, history proves that the U.S. could care less about the violation of Security Council resolutions when its own interests are furthered thereby, illustrated by Israel's unenforced violations of at least 26 UNSC Resolutions (in addition to well over 50 GA resolutions) over the last 30 years. A major reason why they remain unenforced is that proposals to enforce them are routinely vetoed by the U.S., acting alone.

Fourth, although Iraq's WMD from before the 1990's -- the ones the U.S. claimed that Iraq failed to prove were destroyed -- apparently were indeed destroyed, there aren't necessarily documents proving this. For one, many WMD's were secretly destroyed in order to prevent their discovery by the UN, which would make the absence of a paper trail plausible. For another, the "unaccounted for" WMD's didn't necessarily exist in the first place. As Blix's reports noted, Iraqi documents contradicted one another regarding the quantities of particular materiel. The Bush administration contended that any document referring to a larger quantity was necessarily the correct one. Yet the UN inspectors remained unconvinced that the WMD's that Iraq failed to account for ever existed.

[ QUOTE ]
Additionally, the world was pretty much united that the weapons were there. I do not recall arguments from any govenment before the war saying the weapons did not exist.

[/ QUOTE ]
"The world" was never united on the question of whether WMD's existed immediately prior to the U.S. invasion. The only general agreeement was that (1) Iraq possessed large quantities of CBW's and an active nuclear program in 1990; and (2) the nuclear program was shut down and the vast majority of Iraqi CBW's were destroyed under UN auspices, and estimated 90-95% according to former UNMOVIC inspector Scott Ritter. Although the administration endlessly trumpted the first point, it typically neglected to point out how the second made it largely irrelevant. Just prior to the American invasion, most governments and informed observers concluded that the U.S. failed to make a good case that Iraq posed any quantities of WMD's, much less quantities sufficient to pose a threat. This was, for example, the conclusions of those with the best first-hand and most recent information, including access to U.S. intelligence: the UN inspectors. AS Blix told CNN in June of 2003: "The commission has not at any time during the inspections in Iraq found evidence of the continuation or resumption of programs of weapons of mass destruction or significant quantities of proscribed items, whether from pre-1991 or later."

[ QUOTE ]
I still do not understand you absolute hate for the U.S. How can you possibly compare the former Iraqi dictatorship to a US run government? What do you prefer and what is your proposal?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't hate the U.S. any more than Southerners who opposed slavery necessarily hated the South. I certainly don't hate it as much as the use of euphamism to whitewash reality: a dictatorship does not cease from being one just because it's run by the U.S. The U.S. exercises power in Iraq from by force of arms. It has not allowed elections and has even cancelled those where the likely winner will be hostile to U.S. interests. It's current plan for "transferring power to Iraqi's" prohibits nationwide elections to determine the country's leader. It is currently demanding that the Kurds surrender the degree of autonomy they enjoyed prior to the war. There is utterly no reason to assume that the U.S. in Iraq will depart from its usual pattern of trying to influence events in weaker countries to further it's own interests regardless of what the population of those countries prefer, even if it means another Saddam, or worse.

My preference would be for the U.S. to pay reparations for the cost to Iraq for supporting Saddam, for helping to enforce sanctions that harmed Iraqis more than Saddam, and for it to unilaterally surrender authority over Iraq to the UN or even the Arab League. If the U.S. insists on retaining control over Iraq, I would like to see it renounce it's former support for Saddam and to at least make concrete, enforceable pledges that it will never again provide aid or support to any Iraqi leader who is culpable of war crimes and crimes against humanity. I recognize that none of this is any more realistic than similar demands made of other successful conquorers, such as those mentioned above, on the dawn of their victories.

[ QUOTE ]
Your "8,000 dead" analysis is a false one. You have to compare to a baseline of dead and maybe factor is quality of life as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dead is dead. You don't mitigate the crime of murder on the grounds that the victims lead miserable lives. Your point would be better taken in rebuttal to the grandiose claims of how life in Iraq has improved after the war. Many of these claims are accurrate, yet they often fail to account for the effect of sanctions being lifted and all the aid that's flowing in, rather than the war and U.S. dictatorship.

[ QUOTE ]
For some reason, you don't seem to realize that Iraq was an endless killing field filled with torture and terror before the U.S. invasion.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not quite. If you look at the State Department's list (http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/iraq99h.htm) of Saddam's war crimes, you'll find that they chonologically stop with the brutal campaign against the Marsh Arabs in the early to mid- 1990's, following their attempted uprising in 1991. After that, the U.S. allegations refer to "possible crimes against humanity for killings, ostensibly against political opponents, within Iraq." These no doubt occurred, and hundreds and maybe even thousands of Iraqis were tortured or killed illegally in the latter 1990's. But the notion of ongoing mass murder, a human rights crisis like Cambodia's, Rwanda's or Indonesia's (none of which, you'll note, led to U.S. intervention to protect victims) is a propaganda myth. Try finding, for example, good statistics proving that the number of people Saddam killed in the five or so years prior to the invasion exceeded the number of people killed by the invasion.

During the last few years Saddam was probably as bad as Pinochet or Suharto during their last years. Which is pretty bad, but nobody argued for the need to "liberate" Chile or Indonesia by a U.S. invasion. Indeed, the U.S. didn't even back sanctions against these countries, a strong indicator of how much the U.S. cares about human rights. When the invasion occurred, Saddam's prisons were largely empty.

Further, if you were even slightly concerned about Saddam's war crimes, you'd show some concern for U.S. complicity in them. The U.S. supported Saddam in his early years and renewed its ties with him after many of the worst of his crimes became apparent, to the point of providing vital military assistance to keep his regime in power during and after the Iranian war. Some of the people who were instrumental in this effort, such as Donald Rumsfeld, not only remain at large but are influencing the future government of Iraq. Your failure to condemn these actors, many of which you can influence more strongly than the Baathists who remain at large, is as hypocritical as your assumption that they intend to bring "good government" to Iraq is absurd, given the history.

[Gamblor]

Third, history proves that the U.S. could care less about the violation of Security Council resolutions when its own interests are furthered thereby, illustrated by Israel's unenforced violations of at least 26 UNSC Resolutions (in addition to well over 50 GA resolutions) over the last 30 years. A major reason why they remain unenforced is that proposals to enforce them are routinely vetoed by the U.S., acting alone.

The UN has long since been hijacked by Arab interests -
Nearly two-thirds of all General Assembly and Security Council resolutions passed since the UN's birth in 1945 have been directed against Israel. Likewise, Israel is the only UN member nation that is not allowed to hold a seat on the Security Council.

Was there no time for Suharto, Milosevic, the IRA, FARC, or the Russians in their dealings with Chechens? How about the Basques?

And Israeli attempts to pass a resolution condemning acts of terror on Israeli children?

Rejected (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3241884.stm) out of hand by the Arab contingent.

Shows how much the UN is worth.

[adios]

I couldn't agree with you more. Alger often brings up this garbage about Israel and the UN but never in the light that you just presented it in. The US ought to withdraw from the UN ASAP. It's a flawed model and flawed organization.

[andyfox]

By U.S. run governments, I did not mean the U.S. government. I meant governments installed at our behest. Human rights have never been a prime consideration in this process, witness our support for many tyrannical regimes because they were "our bastards."

The belief that we are morally superior to other countries has been a prime reason for our missteps in the world.

[adios]

'By U.S. run governments, I did not mean the U.S. government. I meant governments installed at our behest."

I suppose you consider Iraq an example of this. If and when the Iraqis form another government would you say be saying the same thing about Iraq?

"Human rights have never been a prime consideration in this process, witness our support for many tyrannical regimes because they were "our bastards." "

Cold war policy that was wrong probably.

"The belief that we are morally superior to other countries has been a prime reason for our missteps in the world. "

Don't agree at all. I believe it was due to erroneous beliefs about the nature of communism and the cold war.

[andyfox]

You're missing my point, sir. Let me see if I can explain it better.

Perhaps we should have taken the risk, and perhaps we should not have. My point is that the evidence on which we should make that decision should be truthfully presented and honestly analyzed. We should not be told one thing before going to war and another after. And the evidence should not be interpreted to support a preordained conclusion.

Had I a child killed on 9/11 I would want my government to do the right thing based on the evidence they had and to be truthful to me about it. I felt the administration took its time to establish the responsibility of Al Qaeda for the attacks. And that it was correct in its assessment that Al Qaeda was being harbored by the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. That's why I agreed with the attack on Afghanistan.

The President himself said that Iraq was not an imminent threat, but that he didn't want to wait until it became one. The evidence presented to show why it would become one was tainted.

[Gamblor]

Fair enough. You are correct.

Perhaps he chose the most opportune time - i.e. least impact on the economy, he thought the timing would best serve his re-election bid. Who knows.

But the war was a necessity, now or later.

[andyfox]

"If and when the Iraqis form another government would you say be saying the same thing about Iraq?"

-I can't comment on the human rights record of a government that does not yet exist. One would think that the primary consideration in the U.S. input into the formation of that government would be that it be sympathetic to U.S. interests.

"'The belief that we are morally superior to other countries has been a prime reason for our missteps in the world.l' Don't agree at all. I believe it was due to erroneous beliefs about the nature of communism and the cold war."

No doubt we entertained erroneous beliefs about the nature of communism and the cold war. But U.S. beliefs about its inherent morality and its mission to bring that morality to the rest of the world predate the cold war and, in fact, can be found from the nation's very beginning. All of the founders regarded our very existence as a sacred mission and our country as an empire destined to rule the entire continent as a natural extension of our moral imperative.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
Human Rights Watch ... has estimated that Hussein has murdered 290,000 Iraq civilians between 1991 and 2003.

[/ QUOTE ]
No it doesn't, and your impairment when it comes to simple truth-telling (or perhaps arithmetic) appears unabated. The 2003 HRW report you cite, which largely addresses the question of preserving access to mass graves, refers without citation to 290,000 during the "last two decades," which would date from 1983, not 1991. Most other HRW reports date the 290,000 figure (or 250,000 to 290,000 disappearances, "most" of whom are believed to have been killed) since "the late 1970's" or "during the rule of the Baath party." More detailed (http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/mena/iraq1217bg.htm) breakdowns of the 290,000 figure by HRW indicate that the vast majority of these disappearances occurred prior to the mid-1990's.

So your analysis that fewer people died in the war than were killed by Saddam in the year, or even in the five years prior to the war, is therefore unsound, certainly unsupported by anything published by Human Rights Watch (which, incidentally, did not support the war on human rights grounds).

As for "millions of Iranians and Persians murdered by various chemical cocktails Hussein served up in the early 80s," you forgot to mention "with U.S. assistance." Since no one in the U.S. political establishment or mainstream wants to put those Americans responsible for helping Saddam murder Iranians on trial, or even to condemn them, there is no reason to believe that the same support won't be forthcoming the next time a U.S.-backed Iraqi ruler tries the same, provided that U.S. "interests" are served thereby. Which in turn provess that the humanitarian case for the war is a fraud.

[Gamblor]

So by that model, Switzerland, who does nothing at all no matter what happens, holds the highest moral standing?

[Utah]

Hi Andy,

I have no problem with criticism. In fact, I agreed with that there were troubling questions about Powell's comments. I am not a Bush fan and I am 99% not going to vote for him. What I have a problem with is Chris' continuing display of very negative comments (hate) towards the U.S.

You yourself are often very critical of our government and I hate never said you hate your country. I often agree with your logic - even if I don't agree with your conclusions. And, I have never seen you display hate or contempt for the country you live in.

It is a mistake to confuse criticism of a particular foreign policy of our government with hate for our country

I totally agree. However, I also think It is a mistake to confuse hate for our country with criticism for a particular foreign policy.

[Vehn]

By itself, the fact that Saddam was a brutal dictator who killed many of his own people does not justify the US invasion. If it did, the US should be actively pursuing "liberating" most of Africa, North Korea, and probably a half dozen other countries. If it did, we should have invaded years ago when he in fact he was our de facto ally.

Lets put it another way. Let's say you are holding 100 billion dollars. You have to pick one of two options: you can use it to invade a country on the other side that is no threat to the US, only to itself and possibly our "ally" Israel, or you can use it to build schools and hire more teachers, give tax breaks, or basically all-around improve the quality of life for American citizens. I know what my choice is.

[andyfox]

Alger didn't call anyone a clown show or a dwarf. Nor does he have an audience of millions. There was a comment that Alger hated his country; I inquired where the poster found this in Alger's post.

The point of Chris's post, as I read it, was that Secretary Powell said one thing before the invasion and changed it after. Frankly, the full article was much more damaging, in my judgment, to Powell than the part Chris posted.

What Rush Limbaugh says is much more important than what Chris Alger says (with all due respect to Mr. Alger). So while my priorities may be in disorder (certainly Mrs. Fox would be in agreement /images/graemlins/wink.gif), I don't think criticizing Limbaugh and defending Alger qualifies.

[Chris Alger]

That's a good argument. The invasion of Iraq was justified for violating UN resolutions controlled by "Arab interests" that opposed the invasion of Iraq.

[ QUOTE ]
And Israeli attempts to pass a resolution condemning acts of terror on Israeli children?

[/ QUOTE ]
Wrong again. The report you cite does not say that the proposed resolution was "rejected out of hand" by Arab members, but rather that they sought to change "Israeli children" with "children of the Middle East," so that children killed by Isreali terror would be included. According to your report, this was unacceptable to Israel.

[andyfox]

By what model?

[andyfox]

"the war was a necessity, now or later."

I disagree. But that's fine. All I ask is that our government tell us the truth. I realize this is not a reasonable expectation when war is being planned.

[MMMMMM]

You raise reasonable issues.

My messaage to andy, though, is that IF someone would have supported the war on solely humanitarian grounds, the fact that other arguments favoring the war might be suspect is no logical reason for that person to change his stance.

Also, andy argued that the case for war on humanitarian grounds was not made, or many more would have supported the war. The case was made, and made loudly.

[Gamblor]

Semantics.

certainly unsupported by anything published by Human Rights Watch (which, incidentally, did not support the war on human rights grounds).

As I said, it is a politically-left oriented organization masquerading as a noble fighter of injustice.

[Chris Alger]

So criticizing U.S. policy doesn't prove hatred of the U.S. unless one does so in a "very negative" manner.

That's the essence of the conventional paradigm for discussing foreign policy in the mainstream media and academia: just about everything concerning U.S. actions must be presented in the most favorable light, a rule that applies only to the us. WE make mistakes, THEY commit crimes. WE have unquestionably noble motives (ask any policy maker)but sometimes blunder, overreact, etc. THEY are up to no good and care only for their own selfish interests.

The most useful thing about this double standard, of course, is that the discussion is largely over before it begins.

[adios]

"Perhaps we should have taken the risk, and perhaps we should not have. My point is that the evidence on which we should make that decision should be truthfully presented and honestly analyzed. We should not be told one thing before going to war and another after. And the evidence should not be interpreted to support a preordained conclusion. "

Are you saying that he deceived Congress? Gephardt and many other Democrats don't think so. In another thread the acrimony between the political parties was discussed. Wouldn't the Democrats in Congress have a great political opportunity to embarass Bush and gain from revealing such deception by Bush to the public? Yet many Democrats in both houses ultimately voted for the Iraqi resolution. Gephardt and Lieberman to name a few still state that the US followed the right course. Your portrayel that Congress acted on flimsy evidence is just plain wrong. If the evidence was flimsy and the President had misrepresented it to the public, the Democrats would certainly have screamed about it and gotten plently of press for doing so.

[Gamblor]

That's a good argument. The invasion of Iraq was justified for violating UN resolutions controlled by "Arab interests" that opposed the invasion of Iraq.

That is nothing even remotely close to my argument.

but rather that they sought to change "Israeli children" with "children of the Middle East," so that children killed by Isreali terror would be included.

The Israeli resolution mirrored, almost word for word, a resolution (that passed) calling for the protection of Palestinian children.

That the first resolution was not changed, and the Israeli resolution was rejected in its presented form, constitutes out of hand rejection.

The resolution was advertised throughout Israel as the litmus test of UN impartiality and by altering the wording of the Israeli resolution and endorsing the Palestinian resolution creates a failing condition for said test.

[MMMMMM]

Well compared to communism or theocracy or dictatorship or fascism, our way does have a moral imperative.

I'm not saying our way is ideally and perfectly moral; it's just more moral than the ways listed above.

[Gamblor]

Re: US influence on foreign governments
Human rights have never been a prime consideration in this process, witness our support for many tyrannical regimes because they were "our bastards."

Would you argue that given that the US government established that communism was a threat to its national security and the health of its people, and its support of Hussein was a vehicle whereby the US could mitigate that threat, was support of Hussein not a human rights consideration? If not the Iranians, then the Americans?

Switzerland supports nobody for any reason. Thus, they must be morally superior.

[andyfox]

I probably shouldn't speak for Chris, but it seems that his positions are to the left of mine. (Hard to believe, I know /images/graemlins/smirk.gif). So he is [probably] going to irk you who are to the right of me more than I.

Having said that, what most people believe about our country's foreign policy and history is partly fairy tale. Chris often brings out the ugly parts because those are the parts that are usually most hidden.

As I said, I didn't see any hate for our country in Chris's lead post of this thread. If you can show me what you consider an example of hate for our country in any other of his posts, I have an open mind. (I don't mean that you are obligated to start a research project.)

While it indeed true, objectively, that one can just as easily confuse criticism of foreign policy with hate for country as hate for country with criticism of foreign policy, there is much more evidence of the former, in general political discussion, than the latter. Just about all of the talk radio hosts I listened to in the wake of the Iraqi war, for example, accused the Democratic critics of the war of being unpatriotic or not loving their country. (I heard Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Medved, Larry Elder, Dennis Prager, Bill O'Reilly and Anne Coulter say this, among others.)

This is not at all unusual. When the Democrats are carrying on a war, they also accuse the other side of being unpatriotic. [Haven't been a lot of Democratic presidents in the last fifty years or so, but it's last wartime president, Lyndon Johnson, in may ways the paragon of liberalism, was notorious in this regard.]

[MMMMMM]

Actually, if everybody lived as the Swiss, the world would be a far better place. But try telling that to tyrants or religious fanatics or communists.

[Gamblor]

You have to pick one of two options: you can use it to invade a country on the other side that is no threat to the US, only to itself and possibly our "ally" Israel, or you can use it to build schools and hire more teachers, give tax breaks, or basically all-around improve the quality of life for American citizens. I know what my choice is.

So the Cold War was a waste of money? Only an idiot would announce his intentions to attack a powerful adversary before he does it. Hussein is no different.

[Gamblor]

You have to pick one of two options: you can use it to invade a country on the other side that is no threat to the US, only to itself and possibly our "ally" Israel, or you can use it to build schools and hire more teachers, give tax breaks, or basically all-around improve the quality of life for American citizens. I know what my choice is.

So the Cold War was a waste of money? Only an idiot would announce his intentions to attack a powerful adversary before he does it. Hussein is no idiot.

[andyfox]

It was made after the other cases advanced (Hussein's threat and danger to the U.S. and his connection to 9/11) were criiticzed as suspect. A speech that Mr. Blair made to Parliament pointing out Hussein's depredations (which I believe you posted here at the time) was not matched in this country way by any similarly forceful arguments. The main reason given for going to war, emphasized again and again by the president was the presence of WMDs and the unwillingness of Saddam Hussein to comply with the U.N. resolutions concerning them.

A decision on whether or not to go to war will involve reasons in favor or war and reasons against it. The fact that humanitarian considerations are on the go-to-war side of the ledger does not logically mean a person should favor going to war, as Vehn's post points out.

[andyfox]

Read what Powell said. Before the war he said that Iraq's denials were not credible; now he says there's no concrete evidence. He now says Iraq was an imminent threat, which even the President denied before the war.

I'm having a hard time figuring out why anyone would not expect a government, intent on going to war, to shade the facts in its favor. Every government everywhere forever has done this.

The fact that the Dems voted for the war is irrelevant. They voted for the Tonkin Gulf Resolution too. Gephardt and Lieberman are lightweights. They saw which way the wind was blowing and wafted in the breeze. You can see what people think of them by their current standings in the polls.

Mamy of the Democrats have criticized Bush, particularly on the whereabouts of the WMDs. It's hard to win an election being on the dove side of the argument when we're at war with "terror." As Mr. Dean will soon find out.

And yes, I'm saying not only Congress, but the public was deceived on the nature of the threat posed to us, and thus on the justification for the war. And I'm saying that this is usually the case when any country uses military force to resolve political problems.

[andyfox]

I agree.

My point is that when we go abroad we have been prone to lose sight of our principles. We take an action and it miust be right because we are the indispensable nation and our morals are inherently right and just and good. Some believe this and others use this as a cover for more worldly goals.

Mr. Bush went on record against nation-building when he ran for president, saying he didn't think we were particularly good at it. I agree with him. For the people of Iraq, I hope he was wrong.

[andyfox]

Surely you're not arguing that, because of the perceive threat of communism, support for the bastard Hussein, who apparently murdered tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of people, was a decision done because of human rights considerations. Perhaps our government claimed this to be the case at one time, but if it did, surely it jested. Or lied. Who could have known of Hussein's career prior to his taking power and thought that he would be a human rights advocate?

[andyfox]

SECRETARY POWELL: My presentation on the 5th of February when I talked to this issue made it clear that we had seen some links and connections to terrorist organizations over time, and I focused on one particular case, Zawahiri, and I think that was a pretty solid case.

There is not -- you know, I have not seen smoking-gun, concrete evidence about the connection, but I think the possibility of such connections did exist and it was prudent to consider them at the time that we did.

Were there other ways to solve this problem? I think the President gave the international community every opportunity to solve this problem another way.

The international community gave the Iraqis 12 years to solve this problem any other way.

The President took the case to the international community and said: For 12 years, you have been defied. What are you going to do now? It's time for us to act.

And the President, after a reasonable period of time -- inspectors were still being thwarted, we got an incorrect, ridiculous declaration from the Iraqi Government in response to Resolution 1441 -- and after waiting a sufficient period of time, the President decided he had to act because he believed that whatever the size of the stockpile, whatever one might think about it, he believed that the region was in danger, America was in danger, and he would act and he did act.

And he acted with a large number of countries who felt likewise, and he acted under the authority that we were absolutely sure we had because we negotiated it that way in UN Resolution 1441.

[End of press conference citation]

Note that Powell is confused here. The question, and the initial part of his response, concerned evidence about a link to terrorist organization and to 9/11. Then he talks about the many years the international community gave Hussein to "solve the problem" and live up to the U.N. resolutions. But these resolutions had to do with WMDs and inspections, not connections to 9/11 and terrorist groups. Note that when Powell moves away from the issue of connections with 9/11 and terrorist groups, it is to the argument of lack of compliance with the international community and U.N. resolutions ["the region was in danger, America was in danger"], not to humanitarian considerations.

[andyfox]

You have an all or nothing approach. Certainly the Cold War wasted colossal sums of money on both sides. The question is not whether we needed to spend all that we spent or nothing. Isn't it possible we could have done with a fraction of the number of nuclear warheads we had, and that the Soviets could have as well?

Our resources are not unlimited. Choices are made every day about spending decisions. Some decisions are good ones and some are bad.

[Gamblor]

Surely you're not arguing that, because of the perceive threat of communism, support for the bastard Hussein, who apparently murdered tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of people, was a decision done because of human rights considerations.

Sort of... given the perceived threat of communism to the human rights of Americans, it could be argued that the support of the Ba'athist regime was intended to ensure the human rights of Americans.

"If I am not for me, then who is for me?"

Short-sighted policies are just that - short sighted. If the Carter and Reagan administrations could picture what was happening today, surely they'd have done otherwise. But for the interests of Americans citizenry in the late 70s and early 80s, Hussein was best thing going.

[Gamblor]

question is not whether we needed to spend all that we spent or nothing.

Not in Vehn's post, there isn't.

Obviously, they might have taken 1/3 of the budget and they might have given every school in the country 10 computers.

But those budgets are prepared by the top financial minds in the nation. I don't think there was very much leeway. Would you care to balance the Military's books?

"Oh, I forgot the adjusting entry for interest on that billion dollar loan to Egypt! Now the Assets match the liabilities!"

[Chris Alger]

Israel gets away with violating 26 security council resolutions over 30 years exclusively because the U.S. beto power in the council; therefore

"Arab interests" have hijacked the UN.

Another solid conclusion from the conservative camp.

[Chris Alger]

Let me just guess how Israel voted on the resolution calling for the protection of Palestinian children. Ah yes, here (http://The U.S., Israel, Micronesia and the Marshall Islands opposed the proposal) it is: "The U.S., Israel, Micronesia and the Marshall Islands opposed the proposal...." To recap: most of the world favors a resolution to protect Palestinian children, who have no army, navy or air force to protect them against Israel's military might. Israel fights it on the grounds that other UN resolutions cover all the world's children, then after losing the battle insists that the UN make a special accomodation for it's children, and the UN's snubbing it's nose at Isreal's hypocrisy amounts to a shameful day for the UN. More like another example of the axiom that Israel and its supporters just don't get: what goes around, comes around.

[Chris Alger]

No, your take is accurate and your rendition of what I mean are usually better than what I say, so feel free to speak for me. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

The only reason I don't respond to your uniformly excellent posts on these topics is that I agree with you almost all of the time.

[andyfox]

[elwoodblues]

Do you guys want a little privacy?? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Gamblor]

most of the world favors a resolution to protect Palestinian children, who have no army, navy or air force to protect them against Israel's military might.

So sheer strength is your gauge of morality?

Fantastic I've been arguing with a caveman.

Israel fights it on the grounds that other UN resolutions cover all the world's children

Which blatantly implies that Palestinian (read: Arab)children are more important than any other children.

then after losing the battle insists that the UN make a special accomodation for it's children

Not special accomodation, the same accomodation for its children.

It appears you are representing yourself in this clear-cut case of bankruptcy. Unfortunately, it's moral, not financial.

and the UN's snubbing it's nose at Isreal's hypocrisy amounts to a shameful day for the UN.

It is hypocrisy that Israeli children deserve the same rights as any other children. No wonder the Jews need their own state.

More like another example of the axiom that Israel and its supporters just don't get: what goes around, comes around.

Of course, Israel didn't reoccupy Palestinian lands until the bombing in Netanya on Mar 27. Looks like your axiom holds true.

[B-Man]

about Israel and the Palestinians?

[Gamblor]

No, it is that 2/3 of all resolutions since 1945 have dealt with Israel, while the violent wing of the Arab nationalist and Muslim fundamentalist movements go virtually unchecked, is the evidence for Arab interests hijacking the UN.

Furthermore, if you knew anything at all about Israel, you'd know its socialist nature is the epitome of leftist ideals. Only in a state with a population as patriotic as Israel can socialism thrive - and it has.

[Utah]

First off - I love the Lewis Black line.

Unfortunately, the Calculus in the "guns or butter" trade-off are far more complicated that you make it. You can't discount the threat of a dirty bomb in the U.S., North Korea stirring trouble, Libya, etc. And you can't discount the effects of the U.S. actions in Iraq on other spots in the world. Game threory alone will tell you that our actions in Iraq puts us in far better position with Iran, Korea, Syria, etc.

Lets not forget that a few crashed planes cost us $100+ billion quickly. Also, the effects of spending are buffered. For example, the government spends $50 million on a contract with a U.S. company. A portion of that money pumps right back into the economy. It might effect the balance between goverment wealth and private wealth. However, it does not mean that the U.S. is $50 million poorer.

I am not saying that the money was not badly spent. I am only saying your argument does not support that end.

[MMMMMM]

So what? You said that if the humanitarian case was made more strongly there would have been more supporters. Yet everyone but true ostriches knew how horrid Saddam's regime was. Whether the humanitarian case justified war or not is one issue; but you raised the issue that the humanitarian case was not made or there would have been more supporters. It was made, and was made strongly for many years. Nobody could have missed it.

[MMMMMM]

Yes, and when choosing amongst humanitarian aid candidates (such as Vehn provided examples of), it not only makes sense to consider where the need is greatest, but it also makes sense to consider our costs--and when we stand to gain in a certain area, we have, in effect, lowered our costs. In Iraq we gained strategically, and probably in future security as well. So the fact that we cannot help everywhere means not that we should help nowhere, but instead that we should help where need is greatest and where we can afford it. Iraq fit the bill pretty well in both lights.

[Chris Alger]

This is the second time I've been accused of quoting "out of context" in this thread without any explanation of how, or what Powell's comments actually mean "in context." So I guess the "out of context" criticism is just a meanginless label for an unwelcome quote.

[Chris Alger]

"2/3 of all resolutions since 1945 have dealt with Israel"

You are simply out of mind with your obsessive compulsion to fabricate facts.

[MMMMMM]

""Arab interests" have hijacked the UN.

Another solid conclusion from the conservative camp."

Solid, and obvious, too.

[MMMMMM]

"Furthermore, if you knew anything at all about Israel, you'd know its socialist nature is the epitome of leftist ideals. Only in a state with a population as patriotic as Israel can socialism thrive - and it has."

No offense, Gamblor, but I suspect that Israel would have throve a lot better had it jettisoned those socialist ideals for capitalist ideals long ago. Of course, a tiny state getting $10B a year (or whatever the amount is) from Uncle Sam has a pretty good start when it comes to "thriving."

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
This is the second time I've been accused of quoting "out of context" in this thread without any explanation of how, or what Powell's comments actually mean "in context." So I guess the "out of context" criticism is just a meanginless label for an unwelcome quote.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK you goofball, here is the quote you made without denoting the source (as usual) so that it was difficult to find the context.

"I have not seen smoking gun, concrete evidence about the connection"

And here is the complete quote which is exactly opposite to the point you tried to make.

""My presentation ... made it clear that we had seen some links and connections to terrorist organizations over time," Powell said. "I have not seen smoking gun, concrete evidence about the connection, but I think the possibility of such connections did exist and it was prudent to consider them at the time that we did."

Who on earth do you think you will convince (other than Andy) with your half truths and out of context quotes? Don't you realize how little credibility you have when first pulling these stunts and later using some sort of straw man arguement to deflect the accurate criticism.

[Gamblor]

You are simply out of mind with your obsessive compulsion to fabricate facts.
Israel Sticks Finger in United Nations Eye (http://www.jnewswire.com/news_archive/03/10/031022_un.asp)

[Gamblor]

Of course, Israel didn't reoccupy Palestinian lands until the bombing in Netanya on Mar 27. Looks like your axiom holds true.

Naturally, there is no international recognition of what is colloquially referred to as "Palestinian lands" and thus, the lands are essentially up for grabs.

[Chris Alger]

Although this "fact" has made its way to hundreds of pro-Israel websites, it is sheer nonsense. The Christian right source that you like so well provides one example of how the claim is usually made (here (http://christianactionforisrael.org/un/suspicious.html)):

[ QUOTE ]
"1. Of the 175 Security Council resolutions passed before 1990, 97 were directed against Israel

2. Of the 690 General Assembly resolutions voted on before 1990, 429 were directed against Israel."

[/ QUOTE ]

Thus, if the above were true, about 60% of UN resolutions before 1990 were "directed against Israel."

However, there were not "175 Security Council Resolutions passed before 1990" but 646, as the UN's website tabulation (http://www.un.org/documents/scres.htm) shows. (They are numbered consecutively, and the last one passed in 1989 was 646). Nor were there only "690 General Assembly Resolutions voted on before 1990," as the number of GA resolutions that were acutally adopted exceeded this number by 1952.

Jewish Virtual Library (http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/UN/untoc.html) seemingly lists every GA and SC resolution since 1946 having to do with Israel (it's link is cited by the Isreali Ministry of Foreign Affairs Website). This number amounts to less than 400. The Security Council alone has adopted more than 1500 resolutions since 1946. The GA has probably adopted an average around a hundred resolutions per year since 1946. UN resolutions relating to Israel, much less "directed against Israel," almost certainly amount to less than 10% of the total.

[ACPlayer]

Yet another example of the result being more important than the process to you.

It is clear that you want to fight Islam which you abhor and fight with all weapons, it is clear you want to send American soldiers into the middle east (any place to start and then finish the rest of the snots one by one). Hence you are willing to ignore the fact that the administrations main selling point to the US population was that we were in danger and given 9/11 could not continue to ignore that dastard Saddam, and that the main selling point to the rest of the wold was the presence of WMD in Iraq to the point that they knew where the weapons were.

You are willing to overlook a deceptive incompetent administration that has foisted off the biggest lie in recent memory on the public just because you agree with the result.

Shameful indeed!

[Vehn]

Good point about the "buffering" of the money. But my post was alluding to the "fact" that invading Iraq most likely did and will do very very little to stop more planes from crashing into buildings, which is really what this thread is all about. In the end, I just don't believe that the Iraq war is worth it for solely humanitarian reasons and I would be surprised if much of the american public disagreed with me. Meh.

[Chris Alger]

You mean by admitting that Palestinians don't have as much right to national self-determination in their homeland as the Israelis, on the various grounds that they're violent and backward, "mere Arabs" and "culturally inferior" as another poster likes to contend, or because they're suicidally bound to an agenda of impossible genocide for no particular reason?

Don't hold your breath.

[John Cole]

Wake,

The entire quotte you posted looks even worse. Note that it says "we had seen some links and connections . . . over time." Over what time span? When? "The possibility of some connections did exist . . ." I'm sure you would agree that this was not the scenario presented to us.

Imagine this sort of speech: "We are going to fight a war because of some possibilities that may or may not exist. Right now, we have no evidence, but, instead, we have an inkling. We believe it prudent to act right now on possibilities rather than evidence. We can't be too safe."

By the way, this is the point, I believe, Sacarry makes in her article. Citizens play no part in any decision making process and necessary information is withheld from us.

[MMMMMM]

"You are willing to overlook a deceptive incompetent administration that has foisted off the biggest lie in recent memory on the public just because you agree with the result.

Shameful indeed!"

Not at all; I'm merely saying that even without the additional arguments, those who would have supported the Iraq war purely on humanitarian grounds should have done so anyway even if the administration focused primarily on security matters.

Also, I don't think the administration really misled the public. I believe Saddam had WMD, and WMD programs, and dealings with terrorists including al-Qaeda; and that terrorists trained for hijacking arliners in an abandoned airliner hull in Salman Pak (which hull later was found). I also believe that in addition to secreting hundreds of millions of dollars in Syria shortly before the war, Saddam probably secreted WMDs or WMD components in Syria.

The yellowcake flap was one tiny piece of the evidence against Iraq. That does not mean the whole case was contrived. And Saddam's long history should lead anyone (even you, ACPlayer;-)) to regard it as more likely that he did have some WMD programs than that he did not.

Also, I do not "want to fight Islam which I abhor", as you put it. I think we should fight those who are already trying to fight us--and that of course does include some loony, irrational, deluded, Islamist, jihadist crackpots. In fact not only do I think we should fight them, I think we should kill them--before they get their mitts on some WMD with which to do us major harm. Yes, ACPlayer, we should demolish all the terrorist training camps and strongholds--in Yemen, Syria, Lebanon and elsewhere--in one fell swoop. Muslims who want to practice their religion peacefullly are fine, but jihad warriors plotting to kill us should be killed ASAP.

[MMMMMM]

"or because they're suicidally bound to an agenda of impossible genocide for no particular reason?"

Whatever their reason, sounds like a pretty good description of why a fence is needed.

[MMMMMM]

Powell's quote:

""My presentation ... made it clear that we had seen some links and connections to terrorist organizations over time," Powell said. "I have not seen smoking gun, concrete evidence about the connection, but I think the possibility of such connections did exist and it was prudent to consider them at the time that we did."

I think the quote is more appropriate in context than out of context.

It also seems to me there is an imaginary scale or sliding bar from "no involvement with terrorists" to "smoking gun, serious evidence of involvement with terrorists". Where on this bar a summation of all the evidence would lie is important yet hard to determine.

It is known Saddam had some sympathies for and contacts with terrorists, as well as sharing with them a joint hatred of the USA. So a question then arises: even if we knew precisely the extent of Saddam's involvement with terrorists (and let's even suppose he was not involved to a great extent), what might his future dealings with terrorists be? Do we want to risk his developing more WMDs and possibly selling them to terrorists?

I do agree that at least the tone is different than what we were presented with prior to the war. However I don't think the case for war was greatly overblown.

John Cole: "By the way, this is the point, I believe, Sacarry makes in her article. Citizens play no part in any decision making process and necessary information is withheld from us."

This is true to an extent. It is also one of the inherent features of a republic as opposed to a democracy. It is especially true in military matters, for not only may there sometimes be a need for speed (as Scarry mentions), but there is also a need for security. We cannot simply make public all classified information about matters of national security. Therefore we elect Congressmen and a President in whom, hopefully, we have some confidence. We also have special committees in Congress which are given access to much classified information in order that they may make better decisions and provide the best recommendations.

Perhaps Scarry's article addresses some of the shortcomings of our (or any) constitutional republic. However those shortcomings must be weighed against the flaws of a purely democratic system. I don't think we should have referendums every time we might go to war, although I do think it important that Congress be given the powers of war to which it is constitutionally entitled. I'm not enough of a history buff or constitutional scholar to know whether certain past wars were undertaken constitutionally or unconstitutionally. I think the President's option for the Iraq war was pretty clearly authorized by Congress.

I can't recall everything that was presented to us regarding the case for the Iraq war. I don't feel we were largely deceived.

Also, perhaps the complexity of this issue, even when looked at in hindsight, demonstrates how impractical it would be to attempt to educate the public sufficiently to hold an informed referendum regarding war. Perhaps the mistake in this case was Congress authorizing war at the President's discretion; perhaps Congress should have reserved unto itself the ultimate decision.

[Cyrus]

Even accepting that the Americans have the best intentions in the world, the American occupation is humiliating and insulting Iraqis. The American plans for the future of Iraq as a country are equally onerous. How can a future Iraq be friendly to the U.S., it is beyond me.

Are future Iraqis gonna be celebrating as their National Holiday, May whatever, the day the American President declared "major hostilities" to be over? Or the date that Baghdad fell to Americans? How on earth can a nation celebrate a defeat? How is it possible (or how do they expect us to believe) that a nation will feel friendly towards another country that "liberated" it this way? (Allowing the Iraqis to try Saddam Hussein would be a stepo towards the rigfht direction.)

History has some interesting precedents: Cambodia was invaded by its historical archenemy, Vietnam, whose stated objective was to liberate Cambodia from the regime of the Khmer Rouge. That it eventualy did, and a Vet-friendly regime was installed by the Vietnamese in Pnom Penh. However, the feelings of the Cambodians never changed towards the Vietnamese. As a matter of fact, they got even chillier. And this was the ultra-murderous Khmer Rouge they were liberated from.

Another example: Greece was ruled by a fascist dictatorship when it was invaded by another fascist dictatorship, Italy, in WWII. Did the Greeks, who were heavily anti-fascist, simply dismiss the invasion as a quarrel between two fascist dictators? No, they fought, irrespective of the regime.

Yet another : Spain was invaded by Napoleon Bonaparte, whose regime was certainly much more enlightened and popular than the Spanish monarchy. Yet the Spaniards fought their "liberators" to the man. (Napoleon later invaded Czarist Russia, an even more backward regime than Spain, and met the same reaction.)

The lesson is that patriotic sentiment is not to be trampled upon so cavalierly. The Americans have shown, so far, that they neither have prepared nor iare they capable of formulating any well thought out, long-term winning strategy in Iraq. On the contrary, they are losing the future --- their "expected value" is being eroded.

This forum of advantage players and long-term strategists should have been alarmed by now. Yet no supporter of the war sees anything wrong wit the American "E.V." in it. Supporters of the war see only good times ahead in Iraq. (Are they dizzy from the oil fumes?)

[Cyrus]

"Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom announced that there is no reason why Israel "shouldn't have diplomatic relations with at least 10 Arab nations". Sounds like a warlike nation to me."

Yeah. The tiger was to befriend all the giraffes, as well.

For the umpteenth time : Israel has always been more strong militarily than all the opposing Arab armies combined! Any arguments about Israel being in this or that danger, ever, are simply unsound.

That Israel's objective is, of course, total Arab capitulation to its supremacy in the Middle East (never mind "right to exist"!) is not just anybosy's wild claim. Try the official record the honorable Mr Zabotinsky, chief Zionist ideoleogue. Ariel Sharon is practicing nothing novel.

"[Others'] involvement is limited to one tenth of one penny on the dollar of their taxes. For me (eventually), and my family, their lives hinge on the results."

This is the internet. You have no idea who is at the other end of the line, as it is. And claims about yourself should be made with the utmost humility, lest they come off pathetically empty.

Stick to ideas and argumenmts, please. Boasts about your "high stakes" are of zero value here -- unless you start posting with your real name.

[Rushmore]

I like the way our "Judeo-Christian Ethic" (an utterly absurd construct, incidentally) pushes us to assess and reassess what is "right" and "wrong," and who is "good" or "bad."

In the real world, these things don't matter.

I, for example, cannot shake loose of the notion that it is "wrong" to kill your fellow men because of some oil under the ground, or because someone's imaginary god offends me.

But ultimately, I am incorrect in this assessment.

Just as we are all wasting our time constantly and incessantly positing our opinions as if they mattered.

Ultimately, it's most like the circus envisioned by Caesar--mere sport or entertainment.

BECAUSE YOU ARE MARGINALIZED. Your potency has been eradicated, and resistance is futile.

Sorry, but let's play some poker.

[Gamblor]

I, for example, cannot shake loose of the notion that it is "wrong" to kill...because someone's imaginary god offends me.

Perhaps its the refusal of some to accept that others have beliefs that don't coincide with their own.

[MMMMMM]

"Are future Iraqis gonna be celebrating as their National Holiday, May whatever, the day the American President declared "major hostilities" to be over? Or the date that Baghdad fell to Americans? How on earth can a nation celebrate a defeat?"

Cyrus, perhaps you are forgetting the images of Iraqis dancing on the head of the fallen statue of Saddam, or cheering and smacking its head with their shoes. Or maybe you are ignoring the fact that most Iraqis are glad to see him gone.

You ask how anyone could be glad their government has been defeated. Maybe they are glad because it wasn't really their government in the first place, but instead an apparatus of terror, torture and oppression which ruled them.

Furthermore, your assessment that we are "losing the future" in Iraq is false. Every week we capture more die-hard Baathists and insurrectionists and terrorists. Stability is increasing. Much remains to be done and seen, but things appear to be moving in the right direction, and at a pretty good pace considering the war itself started only months ago.

You put too much stock in pride. Maybe the average Iraqi is not quite as dumb and needlessly prideful as you suppose. Maybe too the average Iraqi has had family members "disappeared" and knows that the pain and disgrace of getting rid of the fallen tyrant was well worthwhile. It takes a lot of hubris to presume that the average Iraqi would not be content to swallow a bit of pride in order to be relieved af an evil despot, and to have a chance at a better future. Come to think of it, most Iraqis prior to the war actually favored the war if it would truly dethrone Saddam--but the hubris-filled Western liberals presumed that they knew what was best for the Iraqi peope--regardless of what demonstrations and pleas came from exiled Iraqis and sme even from those in Iraq. I posted articles detailing such demonstrations and sentiments at the time, though I'm not going to dig them up now. Suffice to say that the average Iraqi THEN AND NOW was not in agreement with your position, or that of the anti-war crowds who so fatuously declaimed the war, irrespective of what the Iraqis themselves wanted.

By the way, right now the average Iranian longs to be rid of the mullahs, but we aren't helping them. Should we go help them (and get rid of the largest terror-supporting government in the world at the same stroke), the liberal and Euro-weenie crowd would be aghast. Yet that's what the Iranian people want--support in getting rid of the mullahs and their theocratic thugocracy. Iran has the most educated, liberal population of all Muslim Middle Eastern states, but is ruled by perhaps the most tyrannical and oppressive government. Executions are rife for political reasons.

[Rushmore]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps its the refusal of some to accept that others have beliefs that don't coincide with their own

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe what I really meant was that it was the refusal of some to accept the fact that beliefs don't matter.

[Gamblor]

This is the internet. You have no idea who is at the other end of the line, as it is. And claims about yourself should be made with the utmost humility, lest they come off pathetically empty.

So now my integrity is on trial. Fantastic.

Suppose I am an American Christian fundamentalist posing as an emigre. Does that make my statement any less true if applied to any of thousands of Israeli yordim this year?

The Zionist propaganda machine (Mar Leibovitz) at Ironi D (Katzir) would be shocked to learn of this development.

There's enough to worry about what with the government's bureaucracy (imagine getting a travel visa!), constant strikes and work stoppages, the drivers, oh, and the matzav.

Yalla bye!

[Gamblor]

There is no doubt Iraqis would have rather done it themselves. But looking a gift horse in the mouth is not the best policy.

[Chris Alger]

From this I understand that you some diability that prevents you from distinguishing the term "is" from "is possible."

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
You mean the state that, in its de facto charter, has vowed to destroy "the Zionist enterprise"?

[/ QUOTE ]
No, I mean the state pursuant to the unbroken diplomatic position of the PLO since 1988: secure borders for Isreal behind the Green Line and the sacrifice of 78% of Palestinian land claims in exchange for a state on the remainder, a compromise that Israel has never accepted and has vowed to never accept.

[ QUOTE ]
Interesting, considering Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom announced that there is no reason why Israel "shouldn't have diplomatic relations with at least 10 Arab nations". Sounds like a warlike nation to me.

[/ QUOTE ]
But since retention of the occupied territories is a given, what Shalom really means is: "There is no reason why Israel shouldn't be able to steal Arab land at gunpoint and throw its people into bondage while having relations with at leas 10 Arab nations." All the Arabs have to do is accept the Israeli Master Race presumption and everything would be solved, at least until Israel initiates its next land grab.

[MMMMMM]

"No, I mean the state pursuant to the unbroken diplomatic position of the PLO since 1988: secure borders for Isreal behind the Green Line and the sacrifice of 78% of Palestinian land claims in exchange for a state on the remainder, a compromise that Israel has never accepted and has vowed to never accept."

Chris this strikes to the heart of the problem: the PLO says one thing diplomatically but behind closed doors does the exact opposite. Palestinian pledges to Israel's "secure borders" have been shown to be worth less than the shavings of Arafat's beard. And by the way, I don't believe the PLO has ever even intended for Israel to have secure borders--wherever those borders might be located. It's a bald-faced lie and a diplomatic trick--just like when Arafat "condemns" terrorism. Arafat no more truly "condemns" terrorism than monkeys fly or pigs piss in the wind to bring the Spring.

[MMMMMM]

Powell also made it clear that some links and connections to terrorist organizations had been observed:

"My presentation ... made it clear that we had seen some links and connections to terrorist organizations over time,..."

however you conveniently left out that part.

The truth of the matter is that there was NO DOUBT that Saddam's regime had had contacts and dealings with terrorists, but there was also NO SMOKING GUN CONNECTING IRAQ TO 9/11. So you might be arguing about two separate things.

[andyfox]

Au contraire. Remember that the U.S. ambassador to Iraw basically told Hussein go ahead, invade Kuwait, we don't care. The U.S. didn't care about Hussein's depreadations and Bush and the administration didn't mention it until its initial arguments about WMDs and the U.N. resolutions didn't do the trick. Failure to live up to the U.N. resolutions was the main point, for the administration, from the beginning, and continues to be the main point, witness Powell's comments.

[MMMMMM]

Irrelevant as to whether the humanitarian case was made. Saddam's tortures and mass murders were all through the mags and news and internet for many years. Who could have missed it?

Maybe you are missing my point. I agree that the administration focused primarily on other matters prior to the war, BUT the case was made by Bush as well as by countless sources over many years. Everybody knew what a brutal horrid regime Saddam had. So the humanitarian case was made, and was well-known too. Therefore anyone who would have supported the war for well-known humanitarian reasons had no call to "unsupport" the war just because the administration did not make that their central point of focus.

As a sidenote, anyone who supported the intervention in Bosnia etc., who also opposed the war in Iraq, obviously cares more about politics than about humanitarian matters. It makes no sense at all to support the Bosnia affair on humanitarian grounds but not the war in Iraq on humanitarian grounds. And plenty of Hollywood airheads did just that, in that they personally took diametrically opposed positions on the two issues.

[Wake up CALL]

John,

[ QUOTE ]
Imagine this sort of speech: "We are going to fight a war because of some possibilities that may or may not exist. Right now, we have no evidence, but, instead, we have an inkling. We believe it prudent to act right now on possibilities rather than evidence. We can't be too safe."


[/ QUOTE ]


Honestly I would say, OK, you know more than I do so I offer you my full support. Unlike the liberal perspective which goes more like; I know what is good for you better than the government in charge with all the classified intelligence.


[ QUOTE ]
By the way, this is the point, I believe, Sacarry makes in her article. Citizens play no part in any decision making process and necessary information is withheld from us.

[/ QUOTE ]

You and Andy keep confusing our Republic with a Democracy and aparrently so does Sacarry. We elect officials to make the decisions, neither you nor I nor Sacarry need any classified information. If you dislike the results of the elected officials vote for someone else during the election. Oh wait! I forgot, you did! LOL /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[andyfox]

OK, I get your point. Let me try mine once again.

The administration tried to sell this war as one that needed to be fought because of Saddam's possession of WMDs and his unwillingness to comply with UN sanctions concerning inspections and verification. When that didn't sell, and when the administration's evidence was called into question, the humanitarian justification was evoked.

It is evident to me that the fact that Iraqis were being killed by Saddam was of no concern to the administration. Many on the Bush team had been calling for Saddam's removal for many years, well before 9/11, for strategic reasons, not humanitarian ones. Former Bush cabinet member Paul O'Neill says that Bush had made up his mind to remove Hussein long ago. 9/11 was used as a pretext to go after Hussein. That Al Qaeda was being given a safe refuge in Afghanistan by the Taliban is unquestioned. That the connection with Hussein warranted the war is not at all clear, and was made all the more debatable by the Bush administrations lack of candor and clarity.

The evidence presented to us about the WMDs and Hussein's connection to 9/11 was shaded, either unconsiously, subconsciously, or consciously, to bolster the administration's claims. This is not unusual, all governments do this, Democratic and Republican, liberal and conservative, democratic and autocratic. No policy is the result of only one input. That Hussein was a murderous thug, that he was in violation of UN resolutions, that he was suspected of having or developing WMDs, that he had tried to assassinate the president's father, that Bush had it at least in the back of his mind that he wanted to get rid of him from the very beginning, that many in the Bush administration felt Clinton had been weak and that Hussein had to go, and had been calling for his removal for the security and economic well-being of the United States--all these and many additional factors no doubt went into the decision. The administration was in no mood for diplomacy. It is an administration that believes we must exercise our military power in order to reassert our rightful place in the world as the indispensable nation.


As for the Hollywood airheads, liberals will tend to support policies by Democratic administrations and oppose policies by Repuiblican administrations as a kneejerk reaction. Ditto for conservatives. If you listen to Mr. Carville, all of Clinton's policies were magnificent and all of Bush's putrid. Vice versa for Mr. Limbaugh.

[andyfox]

"I would say, OK, you know more than I do so I offer you my full support. Unlike the liberal perspective which goes more like; I know what is good for you better than the government in charge with all the classified intelligence."

I would be more likely to say what you would say if experience hadn't shown us that the lunatics are all too often running the asylum. Our leaders are not entitled to do whatever they please because we elected them and its a Republic. They lie about classified information all the time.

[Cyrus]

"So now my integrity is on trial. Fantastic."

Your integrity is of no interest. Take a breather.

In case you did not understand the first time around, here it is again : Your arguments do not merit more weight, as you believe, simply because you claim to have a more direct and heavier "stake" in the matter of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Your ideas and arguments are judged on their own merit and substance, and that is all there is to it.

If you must know, by the way, your ideology in the modern "free marketplace of ideas exchange" carries less weight than duck feathers. You couldn't lend your ideology more weight even if you claimed to be the chief of the IDF staff.

[Chris Alger]

Every government has some link to terrorists somewhere, so that point would be irrelevant. The issue, and the assertion that the White House constantly made, was that there were links between Iraq and the group responsible for the 9/11 attack.

So while Powell asserted an unequivocal link, the denial of which was simply "not credible," now he refers to "possibility" of links or links "over time" for which, in the final analysis, he asserts that there is no "solid evidence." This is consistent with the pre 9/11 assessment of the intelligence community (and Powell) that Iraq was hostile or indifferent to al Qaeda, and that Powell exaggerated to the point of misleading the public in order to use 9/11 as a pretext for a war that he felt the public otherwise would not support (and which 40-45% of the public now thinks was not worth fighting). This is what the antiwar movement was saying all along, and one of the chief government proponents of the war, without whose support it probably wouldn't have been fought, has now vindicated our position.

[MMMMMM]

When discussing matters such as public support or the lack thereof for the Iraq war, I see no valid reason that the opinions of people should be significantly influenced by how much time is spent on discussion of each point. Likewise I have little sympathy for the thought processes of those who react in partisan knee-jerk manner to anything and everything. What are we, a race of nitwits, or the most intelligent beings on this planet?

[MMMMMM]

Chris,

I'm not certain at all that those are the points Powell was referring to, respectively.

As I recall it, the known "connections to terrorists" was used to bolster the view that Saddam represented a threat at some future point to provide WMD to terror organizations; while the "no smoking gun" applied to Iraq involvement in 9/11.

Further, I don't think the "no solid evidence" remark is likely to apply to "connections to terrorists" but rather to "Iraq involvement in 9/11." All this can be seen since it is known that Abu Nidal resided in Iraq over many years; that the al-Qaeda leader with the crippled arm (or leg, whose name I forget) was given refuge in Iraq; that the hull of the airliner used in Salman Pak for terror training was found; and that other meetings between the Iraqi regime and terrorists are known to have taken place.

[MMMMMM]

"Our leaders are not entitled to do whatever they please because we elected them and its a Republic. They lie about classified information all the time."

One reason we have various Congressional oversight committes, with access to that classified information.

[John Cole]

Wake,

For some reason, I don't believe you'd agree so easily. You don't strike me as a sheep.

Like Andy, I will every so often listen to conservative talk radio. I'm struck by the commercials and what they say about the audience. Note the pitches for ludicrous investments; easy vocabulary builders (hell, the only reason ya can't talk to people is your vocabulary; learn a few good words--no need to know what they mean, really--and you'll be sure to impress; let's start with "hegemony" and "praxis"); weight loss solutions, i.e., diet pills (Too lazy to go to the gym to get rid of that beer gut? Well, pop a few of these and the weight will just fall off); and, of course, herbal penis enlargers. Apparently, this audience will then go off spouting nonsense about liberals knowing what's good for everyone.

What utter contempt for the audience. But, I realize that it's only radio, and it will disappear without the advertising. However, what's more appalling is an administration that shows a similar contempt for its audience, believing that saying something is so makes it so.

Of course, they did have that classified intelligence.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

I ain't ripping on people who care about the results. I just want to stop hearing about death and destruction in that area on the news. Death and destruction that's now exported to the world and the US.

The results of the six days war have had disastrous consequences for decades. Admittedly, the israelis got that land fair and square (since they were about to be invaded, and preemptively struck back). However, they really need to decide if the land is worth all the bloodshed that's resulted over it since then. The israelis
CAN be quite amiable and logical at times, but this one baffles me. Rabin kicked ass, but of course he got shot, and his successors don't seem as willing to compromise as he was.

And the palestinians MUST have their own state or this will ABSOLUTELY NEVER be solved. Like I already said tho, the palestinians will probably NEVER be happy, even with their own state. They will keep hating israelis till finally the whole world blows up. A bunch of underhanded terrorist jerks have been running "paestine" forever. Arafat #1, why won't that idiot just DIE already? But if they have their own state, I don't personally care if they fight amoungst themselves after that.

the whole mindset in the middle east needs a serious overhaul, one that's not coming, and probably won't come, despite the 21st century's arrival. Most people there would just prefer to stay in the dark ages as far as i can tell.

al

[Al_Capone_Junior]

[ QUOTE ]
Arafat no more truly "condemns" terrorism than monkeys fly or pigs piss in the wind to bring the Spring.


[/ QUOTE ]

ROFLAFAO!

Your whole post rings of truth. When it comes to the middle east, we can't have THAT confusing everything, now can we?

al

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]

I would be more likely to say what you would say if experience hadn't shown us that the lunatics are all too often running the asylum. Our leaders are not entitled to do whatever they please because we elected them and its a Republic. They lie about classified information all the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

You make a very good point here Andy. I really do not think they intentionally lie about classified information on a regular basis. I do believe that opponents make an unsubstantieted accusation that cannot be completely refuted due to the classified nature of the proof. Many people then assume the accusations are true. It is a common political trick used by both sides of the aisle. When I am in doubt I normally use Occams Razor theory to determine the most likely truth. If I am still unsure I consider it wise to believe those that have access to classified data rather than those trying to either sell a book or run for a political office.

[Wake up CALL]

John,

First of all, Baa, Baa!

It surprises me that you did not realize the penis enlargement, weight loss and vocabularly builder ads are there for the benefit of the liberals who tune in. It is a simple but effective strategy used to lull your opponents into a false sense of superiority, then BAM, we lower the hammer during the election.

Personally in my opinion the Liberals are much more honest in their choice of advertisers. I watch Liberal TV and see ad after ad of stock market propositions designed to increase your wealth, particularly for your retirement years. This is great advice since when the liberals are in charge they want to tax and spend us into the poorhouse. At least they are offering a chance at living above the poverty level even as they tax our current incomes beyond any reasonable stretch of the imagination.

[John Cole]

Wake,

Consider the claim that weapons inspectors were deceived because wmds were moved from sites that inspectors had scheduled to visit before they arrived. Apparently, we had sufficient intelligence to claim this, yet we did not know where the wmds were moved to. Doesn't this seem illogical?

Until we know what intelligence was gathered and presented and what further intelligence was demanded and either presented or not presented, we can't understand the motives of those who used the intelligence to make certain claims.

[John Cole]

Well, "lowering the hammer" might be the apt wording.

BTW, I'm not a liberal.

[MMMMMM]

It really doesn't necessarily seem illogical. If we had human intelligence (or even aerial photos) of WMD or very suspicious items at those locations, would we also necessarily have the full ability to track them to wherever they were taken?

I see you in a cab on a busy street and try to follow you. Not that easy in Boston. But if you are also intending to lose me, and perhaps have several decoy cabs as well, it gets a lot harder. And that may be a much simpler task than trying to track things Saddam may have wanted moved and hidden in all of Iraq (and possibly in neighboring Syria or Lebanon as well).

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Wake,

Consider the claim that weapons inspectors were deceived because wmds were moved from sites that inspectors had scheduled to visit before they arrived. Apparently, we had sufficient intelligence to claim this, yet we did not know where the wmds were moved to. Doesn't this seem illogical?

Until we know what intelligence was gathered and presented and what further intelligence was demanded and either presented or not presented, we can't understand the motives of those who used the intelligence to make certain claims.


[/ QUOTE ]

John,

This is an odd post considering 10 mortar shells containing WMD's were found yesterday. Have you not been watching the news?

If you are not liberal I'll eat a straw hat.

[ACPlayer]

If I had the resources of the US govt, not only could I follow your Boston cab I could tell you the length of your finger nails.

Powell et al made it clear that they "knew" where they were and refused to turn over any information to Blix despite repeated entreaties. The decision to go to war was made prior to the 1441 (actually prior to the election according to some and definitely prior to 9/11). Creating an atmosphere of Fear Uncertainty and Doubt the classic methods of snake oil salesmen were used to cram this through an idiotic congress and the trusting public.

The lies are obvious to anyone willing to look at the information with an open mind.

[John Cole]

Sorry, haven't been watching Fox, which will, of course, simply scroll the banner "WMDs Found" without testing the shells.

[ACPlayer]

Careful John, anyone not agreeing with Mr Call is by definition a liberal.

This is the lesson of Rush-a-holics, if you dont agree with something label it, preferably label it liberal.

[John Cole]

Wake,

one more thing: you really don't believe these ten mortar shells, apparently buried since the Iran-Iraq War, was what Bush had in mind, do you?

And, glad you selected a straw hat. Werner Herzog had to eat a shoe.

[Roy Munson]

I didn't realize that Boog Powell had made any public statements regarding the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

I do know that he could hit the long ball and was surprisingly agile at first base for a man of his immense size and ample girth.

[John Cole]

Mark,

But if I were navigating the streets of Boston in a battleship, your job would be much easier. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Why did Ari Fleischer resign?

[Wake up CALL]

Thanks for the lucid explanation ACPlayer. Do you have time to explain my chidhood to me while you are analyzing my thought processes?

It is clear that John has liberal views no matter what he prefers to consider himself. Just like a cat who thinks he is a dog is still a cat. Being a liberal is certainly no sin, however endorsing and embracing their policies is to bring our great nation closer to self-destruction.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Wake,

one more thing: you really don't believe these ten mortar shells, apparently buried since the Iran-Iraq War, was what Bush had in mind, do you?

And, glad you selected a straw hat. Werner Herzog had to eat a shoe.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well John since they never provide any of us with any information I am unable to properly answer your question. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Gamblor]

Arafat #1, why won't that idiot just DIE already?

I'll lay 5-1 that when he dies, they'll shoot him after and claim it was Israeli gunfire.

[Gamblor]

All the Arabs have to do is accept the Israeli Master Race presumption and everything would be solved, at least until Israel initiates its next land grab.

Take a look at a map of the middle east. Tell me about all the land grabbing of Israel vs. the size of the cumulative Arab lands. Now tell me secure borders include the 12 km hike from Qalqilya to Tel Aviv.

[Gamblor]

If you must know, by the way, your ideology in the modern "free marketplace of ideas exchange" carries less weight than duck feathers. You couldn't lend your ideology more weight even if you claimed to be the chief of the IDF staff.

What exactly is my ideology?

[MMMMMM]

Many WMD components actually take up less space thab a cab.

[MMMMMM]

ACPlayer,

I'm sure that, just as you have an "open mind" as to whether or not Saddam had WMD programs, so too Howard Dean has an "open mind" as to whether or not bin-Laden was behind 9/11.

Three cheers for "openmindedness."

[andyfox]

"What are we, a race of nitwits, or the most intelligent beings on this planet?"

The jury is still out . . . /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Al_Capone_Junior]

[ QUOTE ]
Supporters of the war see only good times ahead in Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not true.

I see nothing but strife, war, hatred and destruction in the far distant future for the entire middle east. But I am still glad hussein is history.

al

[ACPlayer]

Frankly, history will judge this war not by whether or not Saddam had WMD, but by its analysis of whether the 400+ lives (to date), 3500+ injured US soldiers, 10000+ dead/injured iraqis, 160Billion dollars in expenses (to date) has:

-- made the middle east safer
-- led Iraq to a better future
-- made US any safer

Eight months (not a long time to be sure) after the end of major hostilities:

The middle east is not safer
Iraqi future is all promises presently
The US is no safer

Hopefully all of these will change.

[ACPlayer]

So -- what's a liberal, oh learned and wise one?

Would a country with every one thinking on the same non-liberal page be a better or worse one?

[MMMMMM]

ACPlayer: "Eight months (not a long time to be sure) after the end of major hostilities:

The middle east is not safer
Iraqi future is all promises presently
The US is no safer"

On what grounds do you claim the Midle East is not safer? Libya has voluntarily come out of the closet and agreed to disarm of its WMD, and our forces are in a strategic location from whence they can drop-kick any regional terrorist enclaves should the need arise. So...how can you make such a statement...unsupported, and probably wrong to boot.

Iraqi future is indeed mostly promises and hopes at present, but at least they have a chance for a turn...unlike when ruled by that depraved Stalinist despot.

On what grounds do you claim the US is no safer? al-Qaeda has been deprived of their choice central location, terror plots have been foiled, 2/3 of al-Qaeda leadership has been captured or killed...yet you make this unsupported statement as if stating a fact. Unsupported, and probably wrong...just as Dean absurdly proposed that 1) we were no safer, and 2) that he wouldn't want to prejudge bin-Laden's guilt.

Common sense does appear to be in somewhat short supply these days.

[ACPlayer]

Libya, like other such countries had a failed nuclear program that they claim to have given up. THis is primarily due to the sanctions that have been in place and not primarily due to Iraq. Those sanctions led to their admitting a role in lockerbie and now to this latest step.

So far Iraqis have promises. Perhaps they will head towards a free society, perhaps they will head towards a Shah like US backed police state. Time will tell.

The operation in Afghanistan is responsible for the decimation of the Al Qaeda leadership, Iraq had no demonstrated relationship to Al Qaeda - except in Dub(ya)ious analysis of a purported meeting between operatives.

We will only be safe if the administration actually takes on its friends and allies in Saudi and Egypt. Event Richard Perle (not exactly a liberal, except where he disagrees with Wake Up) in an NPR interview recently acknowledged that our relationships with these two countries is the principle source of anomisty against the US by the middle east and a principle cause of our being a terrorist target.

You are right about one thing, the only benefit from the costs I catalogues earlier is that a criminal does not run Iraq. Other than that, your thinking is clouded by your well established bigotry.

[Cyrus]

"The PLO says one thing diplomatically but behind closed doors does the exact opposite."

Damn, I never got to have those nifty X-ray glasses I saw advertised at the back of the comic books. Seems like someone here got 'em, though!

Would you consider lending 'em and for how much ?

"Palestinian pledges to Israel's "secure borders" have been shown to be worth less than the shavings of Arafat's beard. I don't believe the PLO has ever even intended for Israel to have secure borders--wherever those borders might be located. It's a bald-faced lie and a diplomatic trick--just like when Arafat "condemns" terrorism"

It is impossible to argue rationally with anyone who believes such things. You dismiss statements, dismiss facts and you dismiss events. You will only accept your predermined beliefs. You actually adapt facts &amp; events to suit your predetermined world view. (Note that this is the very definition of prejudice.)

No matter what the Palestinians say or do, you will never be convinced that they mean what they say. I'm sure that this can make you happier (check out Wogga, for such an example of a happy man; he assures that happiness will come to anyone who admits to himself that all Ay-rabs are inferior).

But it sure as hell doesn't make you wiser.

[MMMMMM]

"No matter what the Palestinians say or do, you will never be convinced that they mean what they say."

No, Cyrus, I am quite convinced that Hamas, for instance, means to destroy Israel, as they have pledged.

I'm just not convinced that Arafat or the PLO has ever really meant it when they agreed to Israel's right to "secure borders." But hey, you go right ahead and believe Arafat if you like. I've just lived too long to believe that a former hijacker and chronic supporter of terrorists ever really wanted peace.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

[Al_Capone_Junior]

[ QUOTE ]
I've just lived too long to believe that a former hijacker and chronic supporter of terrorists ever really wanted peace

[/ QUOTE ]

But arafat won the NOBEL PEACE PRIZE, how can we doubt the FKhead! My respect for that prize went WAY down, needless to say. Hell next year they'll give it to saddam and bin laden.

al

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
So -- what's a liberal, oh learned and wise one?

[/ QUOTE ]

A political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties.

[ QUOTE ]
Would a country with every one thinking on the same non-liberal page be a better or worse one?

[/ QUOTE ]

It would be worse, different political opinions are essential for progress and to prevent fanatical policies from being implemented without a full discourse. Just because those liberal opinions would be different and provide an alternative point of view does not necessarily make them correct. For that matter if today's liberals actually espoused the views of a well defined liberal I would gladly welcome their policies. The problem arises when so called liberals begin to practice their bastardized version of Liberalism.


PS: In the future I would appreciate it if you continue to refer to me as the "learned and wise one." It conveys a proper and accurate sense of respect and dignity which I have earned should be afforded. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[MMMMMM]

Wake up CALL's definition of a liberal:

"A political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties."

Good definition IMO.

"For that matter if today's liberals actually espoused the views of a well defined liberal I would gladly welcome their policies. The problem arises when so called liberals begin to practice their bastardized version of Liberalism."

Thank you, Wake up CALL...the above two paragraphs are like a nut in a fine shell, O Learned and Wise one.

To expand a bit: Many today waving the "liberal" banner seek to control others, rather than seeking to ensure the protection of individual rights. They place equality of results higher than equality of rights. That is the most insidious and potentially dangerous error that they make.

Our government was not created in order to ensure equality of results, but rather, to protect equality of rights. Turning this principle on its head, as many so-called liberals are wont to do, is a very popular and very bastardized version of liberalism.

[MMMMMM]

ACPlayer, you wrote:

"You are right about one thing, the only benefit from the costs I catalogues earlier is that a criminal does not run Iraq. Other than that, your thinking is clouded by your well established bigotry."

Well here below is the post you were responding to. Find for me in it, if you can, anything which even remotely resembles bigotry.

M wrote: "On what grounds do you claim the Midle East is not safer? Libya has voluntarily come out of the closet and agreed to disarm of its WMD, and our forces are in a strategic location from whence they can drop-kick any regional terrorist enclaves should the need arise. So...how can you make such a statement...unsupported, and probably wrong to boot.

Iraqi future is indeed mostly promises and hopes at present, but at least they have a chance for a turn...unlike when ruled by that depraved Stalinist despot.

On what grounds do you claim the US is no safer? al-Qaeda has been deprived of their choice central location, terror plots have been foiled, 2/3 of al-Qaeda leadership has been captured or killed...yet you make this unsupported statement as if stating a fact. Unsupported, and probably wrong...just as Dean absurdly proposed that 1) we were no safer, and 2) that he wouldn't want to prejudge bin-Laden's guilt.

Common sense does appear to be in somewhat short supply these days."

ACPlayer, when you stop and think, do you actually spend any time thinking...or do you just go through the motions?

[ACPlayer]

I refer you back to a previous thread on the subject. You have a good memory and know what I am talking about.

[ACPlayer]

oh learned and wise one

I am truly humble, you have a good definition of Liberal.

When you use the word liberal in your posts to characterize people like Mr Cole, do you mean this definition or the (undefined) bastardized version? If the latter perhaps you can coin a new term.

[MMMMMM]

Ah, so you just thought you'd throw that in, insinuating that my remarks on the current topic outlined in my post were clouded by bigotry, when actually they weren't. Thanks for the clarification.

[Wake up CALL]

I believe Mr Cole has only the best of intentions. Other than his views on gun control I cannot fault him for anything other than quoting a few of the criminaliberals (my new term you wished for me to coin).

Signed,

oh learned and wise one

AKA Wake

[George Rice]

[ QUOTE ]
criminaliberals (my new term you wished for me to coin)

[/ QUOTE ]

Spoken by a real flaming conservative. /images/graemlins/wink.gif