Ending the war in Iraq is right for a lot of reasons. The war was unjustified, unnecessary and unprovoked. It is counterproductive, strengthening al-Qaeda and weakening the moral authority of the United States. It is deadly: Many Americans, and many, many more Iraqis, have been killed or injured as a result of the fighting. And it is costly: Well over $250… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (659)Yes this is the guy to follow. Maybe he should run for president. . . :)
“Republicans in Congress won’t extricate the United States from the quagmire the president has gotten us into.”
Nor will Democrats (half of which were for the war). Nor will they cure cancer. Some issues just take time and energy and patience (and perhaps luck as well).
If we are really going to decide issues primarily by popularity, perhaps it is time to go to a direct democracy? Use the Internet to allow us all to vote on everything. (Which i think would be an utter and complete disaster.)
Posted by wolf on Oct 31, 2005 at 8:11 PM Kucinich is the reason Democrats lose. Let’s face it he’s saying nothing but “I told you so.” What’s his solution? Withdrawal and turn it over to the Iraqis. What’s the administration’s stated position? Turn it over to the Iraqis and withdraw. Undoubtedly, the Dems will add “when Iraqis are able” which makes it identical to the Republican position. There is no difference because neither is willing to leave it in the hands of slaughtering factions. Both hold the standard of civility and democracy for success. Neither can admit that Iraqis don’t have what it takes for a liberal democracy.
The Democrats can sound different but so what? In 2000 Bush ran against Clinton’s policy of regime change in Iraq and against nations-building. Bush became Clinton. The Democrats will talk about withdrawal and promise to do things differently next time but they will become Bush.
Posted by JasonPappas on Oct 31, 2005 at 8:44 PM In September, I attended Lynn Woosely’s hearing on setting an exit strategy for Iraq. One after another, experts testified that there will be little difference in the consequences if we pulled out of Iraq today or ten years from now. We’ve created a mess that won’t be improved no matter how many of our kids we cast on the sacrificial alter! Our troops signed up to defend us and now it’s our job to stand up and defend them, because they are not dying and getting maimed in Iraq to defend us.
It’s time we had politicians with the courage to take a stand against the never ending occupation of Iraq. The solution starts with the determination that we need to end this war. All I hear from our leaders is that it’s an impossible mess. So are they suggesting that we stay there forever? Thank you Dennis Kucinich - you are the reason the Democrats will win this time, and I intend to be right there with them.
Posted by jeeni on Nov 1, 2005 at 2:10 AM This guy’s got a lot of nerve. After betraying his followers at the convention and being AWOL from the antiwar movement, he gets on his soapbox here like nothing happened. Zero credibility and another lesson for those who don’t believe that democratic primaries are where progressive politics go to die.
Posted by citizensf on Nov 1, 2005 at 4:42 AM One Liberal recently lost the Presidential election for flip-flop-flip-flop, among other things, but Kerry has nothing on Kucinich. The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 was passed unanimously in the Senate, and the vote in the House was 360 - 38. President Clinton signed it into law. Removing Saddam from power has been a matter of United States law since 1998. Among the reasons given for this law was that Saddam had WMD and was a threat to the USA.
Dennis Kucinich voted for the Iraq Liberation Act.
From the time of ILA 1998 to the start of hostilities against Iraq in 2003, there were MANY quotes about the danger of Iraq’s WMD, including quotes from Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Daschle, Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy, Levin, Rockefeller, and that jerk from Delaware, I never can remember his name. Kevin Drum, not your basic conservative, did an extensive internet search and concluded that no national American politician ever said that Saddam did not have WMD before the start of hostilities.
So here is a challenge for you. Kucinich and all the Democrats now say that President Bush lied about the WMD in order to go to war. But in ILA 1998, these same Democrats said that Saddam did have WMD, and they continued to say the same thing up to the time the war started. So, can anyone find an authentic quote dated before April 2003 from a recognizable Democratic politician that Saddam had no WMD?
(Interestingly, Drum’s research revealed only two names of people who suggested that there were no WMD before 2003: Vladimir Putin and Scott Ritter. Coincidentally or not, Putin and Ritter were both recipients of Oil-for-Food money in the current UN scandal.)
Posted by scorp on Nov 1, 2005 at 4:30 PM jeeni wrote - “One after another, experts testified that there will be little difference in the consequences if we pulled out of Iraq today or ten years from now.”
Not that i doubt the integrity and earnestness of the experts that testitfied that day, but i really do not believe that *anyone* can make such predictions with any amount of accuracy. If one could really predict the future of such very complex events, they should give stock tips. . .
But, if nothing else, it clarifies what some might consider an option for an exit stategy (cut and run). I was not aware that *anyone* really thought that it was an *optimal* strategy for us, much less Iraq. I was clearly mistaken, and appreciate the post by jeeni for that reason.
————
(PS - the stock tip thing is really unfair. After time goes by, one can actually determine if one was correct or not. In the case of either/or choices, only one choice of many is ever exercised, and thus the comparison of which of the choices is optimal is forever impossible to determine. Which makes predictions of either/or events much more fun - no one can ever *prove* you were wrong!)
Posted by wolf on Nov 1, 2005 at 4:45 PM The secret WHIG group was outed in 2003 - before the last presidential selection. It was hushed up, and very little is being said about it even now.
These hired guns did their jobs, and tens of thousands of people died. Why are they getting away scot-free? These traitors pulled off the biggest hoax in history, and hardly a voice has been raised in protest. This is a must read all the way through…..
Posted by skipper7 on Nov 1, 2005 at 8:47 PM To wolf: apparently, you are not a poker player or you would be familiar with the term “throwing good money after bad.” That means calling bets even though you are relatively certain you are holding a losing hand. That is what we are doing in Iraq. Of course, we don’t use poker chips, we use human beings.
To JasonPappas: Your observation that the Dems will add something like “when Iraqis are able” has come to pass. See the “exit strategy” offered by Kerry a few days ago.
To jeeni: The longer we stay in Iraq, the more violent the situation will become. The only way to pacify hostiles in an occupied terroritory is to eliminate (i.e. kill) them. A good example of U.S. pacification of the native Americans in the 1800’s.
The only time, to my knowledge, that an invading army has ever been greeted with flowers and parades is when the invading army is expelling a foreign occuping army. Even then, the invading army must began making immediate plans for withdrawal.To scorp: John Kerry - a liberal? He was just a “not-Bush.” No, Mr. Kerry is referring to the illegal and immoral war of aggression in Iraq as “a foreign policy misadventure.”
I would like to see Mr. Kerry explain to Cindy Sheehan and the other two thousand Gold Star families that Iraq was “a foreign policy misadventure?” I would like him to explain to the 15,000 severely wounded American service men about this “foreign policy misadventure.” Tell the 100,000 families of the dead in Iraq, “Oh, we’re sorry. This was just a little foreign policy misadventure.”
This was not a foreign policy misadventure. This was and is a war crime and a conspiracy on a massive scale. In the words of General Anthony Zinni, the Bush administration “cooked the books.” There were no WMDs in Iraq. There were no Al Qaeda connections. There were no 9/11 connections. There were no Osama bin Laden ties. These facts were all known by the U.S., Israeli, and British intelligence long before this little “misadventure” began.
If there is any Democrat (or Republican) in Washington D.C. with any gonads at all who voted in any way for this war, it is time they stand up, admit the war is illegal and immoral, apologize for being duped into voting for it, then insisting loud and clear that we get out of Iraq NOW! Then, we should begin the war crimes tribunal.
That, my friends and Mr. Kucinich and Mr. Kerry, is an exit strategy.
Posted by gar1948 on Nov 1, 2005 at 9:18 PM “There were no WMDs in Iraq. . .. These facts were all known by the U.S., Israeli, and British intelligence long before this little “misadventure” began.”
This is, of course, silly. It was known by all sides that Iraq had WMD, it was not even particularly controversial (but there was controversy over whether/when they might have the means to deliver them to sensitive targets). Of course, as it turned out, it was also not correct.
It is also worth noting that Cindy Sheehan lost more than her son over this war, She also lost her family. Of course, in matters of such import, people not only disagree, but disagree violently. It is disingenuous to suggest that those who have lost loved ones are in general on “her” side.
That said, she and you certainly have the right to have an opinion and be vocal about it. But speaking loudly or with certainty does not morph opinions into facts. . .
Posted by wolf on Nov 1, 2005 at 9:36 PM From http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45726
“The Sheehan family lost our beloved Casey in the Iraq War and we have been silently, respectfully grieving. We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the expense of her son’s good name and reputation. The rest of the Sheehan family supports the troops, our country, and our president, silently, with prayer and respect.
Sincerely,
Casey Sheehan’s grandparents, aunts, uncles and numerous cousins.”
Posted by wolf on Nov 1, 2005 at 9:39 PM “This is, of course, silly. It was known by all sides that Iraq had WMD…”
Well wolf, it looks like our little discussion is over. Obviously we don’t live in the same universe. In the universe where I live, the reason Joe Q. Public thought there were WMDs in Iraq is because the Bushkavites lied and manufactured evidense. Had they actually thought there were WMDs there, this might be understandable (although not forgiveable.) However, there is ample proof that they knew there were no WMDs. See the Downing Street Memos.
This means they deliberately conspired to defraud the people of the United States of life, liberty, and property - not to mention what they are doing to the people of Iraq. As far as I am concerned, that makes them just another gang of mobsters, not a government.
Here’s an idea. If you think the Iraqi war is justified and such a hot idea, why don’t you go over and fight and let someone who doesn’t believe in it come home.
Posted by gar1948 on Nov 2, 2005 at 4:04 AM Click Here for the story of a British officer who is willing to go to jail for refusing to return to Iraq because he thinks the war is illegal.
Posted by David in Canada on Nov 2, 2005 at 4:11 AM More on WMD, in “farhenheit 9/11” we see footage of two seperate speeches given by Powell, and Rice after Bush took office, both asserting that Saddam has no weapons, nor weapons programs, that the sanctions and inspections had seen to that, that he was “contained”. The NIE up to a year before the war, which was the opinion of the entire intelligence community, held that he had no weapons. The inspectors in Iraq until war was imminent could find no WMD, even at the sites that the US directed them to inspect. The constant repeating of the phrase “everyone thought he had them” does not make it true. If we had thought he had them, our troops would have been issued the appropriate gear…...well maybe not in Rumsfelds army, but the evidence is mounting that intelligence was cooked up, hence the need to lash out at those who tried to point it out at the time, which led to the outing of a CIA NOC, obstruction and perjury in the investigation of the outing, and today’s closed door session of the senate to demand that the mishandling of intelligence be investigated. If everyone thought there were weapons there it wouldn’t have been neccessary for the OSP to stovepipe cherry picked intel to Cheney, Rumsfeld wouldn’t have tried to run the war on the cheap, and the Europeans would have backed our play.
Posted by Kenneth D. Brown on Nov 2, 2005 at 4:50 AM Ending the war in Iraq is right for a lot of reasons.
Mostly because it already ended. What Kucinich is really saying, after freeing the Iraqi people from the yoke of Saddam, we should turn tail and run, leaving them to their own problems.
with no end in sight
Typical Democratic pacifistic blindness. The Sunnis tried to stop the first election through boycott and insurrection and failed. They tried to stop the vote on the constitution with insurrection and failed. They finally decided to try political participation over killing (oops, that is a variation of the ol’ butter and guns argument - funny that it isn’t coming from a Democrat!). All they gotta do is start working toward stopping the Sunni insurrection.
If Democrats do not make this the centerpiece of their campaign in 2006, they risk repeating recent history, ... “Let no light show” between Democrats and President Bush on foreign policy was the (DNC) leadership’s strategy
um, the only history they are in danger of repeating is making the war an election issue.
Again.
and,
talk about revisionist histories!
Bush’s war and occupation squandered the abundant good will felt by the world for America after our 9/11 losses.
Like the false hope and goodwill that al Qaeda and Osama felt as they believed America would cower in cowardice? Yeah, we really squandered that opportunity for them.
the United States from the quagmire the president has gotten us into
see my first comments. Yeah, that’s a real quagmire. The only real quagmire is for the Iraqis, and that is only who to vote for, rather than who to kill today.
The stakes are high: Unless Democrats stand for ending the war in Iraq, this country will not leave Iraq,
Wait a minute! Why am I trying to shoot down the Dems using the war as an election issue?
I want the Republicans to win.
Go Kucinich!
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 2, 2005 at 4:09 PM gar1948 - you think what is going on in Sudan is ok? If not, planning to take up arms there? How about domestic violence? I assume if you are not a cop, you are in favor of same? Problem with strawman arguments is they burn so very easily. . .
Oh, don’t forget that in the “WMD conspriracy of intellilgence”, virtually all of Europe were co-cospirators. Clinton too. Pretty much everyone. . .
But i will agre there were no WMD (kinda funny that Saddam tricked us, i bet he is really grinning over that now!). And personnally, i really had no problem with Saddam killing his own citizens (we in the US excel at escaping our eyes from such bothersome trivia). So yes, i have to say, the war was foolish. As is police responding to domestic violence calls, where people, even innocent ones, sometimes/oftentimes are hurt as a consequence.
Posted by wolf on Nov 2, 2005 at 4:19 PM Oh, don’t forget that in the “WMD conspriracy of intellilgence”, virtually all of Europe were co-cospirators. Clinton too. Pretty much everyone. . .
Exactly Wolf, they are all in on it.
It is a good cop / bad cop routine acted out for mass consumption.
Cynical Dave says it is all so predictable it is getting boring.
Posted by David in Canada on Nov 2, 2005 at 11:39 PM Brown -
Talk, talk, talk.
So here is a challenge for you. Kucinich and all the Democrats now say that President Bush lied about the WMD in order to go to war. But in ILA 1998, these same Democrats said that Saddam did have WMD, and they continued to say the same thing up to the time the war started. So, can anyone find an authentic quote dated before April 2003 from a recognizable Democratic politician that Saddam had no WMD?
If Powell or Rice made a speech and said that there were no WMD, that (those) speech(es) are recorded somewhere. Show me. Remember that George Tenet, CIA Director, told President Bush that it was a “slam dunk” that Saddam had WMD.
Now the CIA has a long record of incompetence and muddled Liberal confusion, but what is the President of the USA to do in the following scenario: there are tens of thousands of dead Iranians, military and civilian, and tens of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians, all killed by Saddam’s poisonous gases, and the Director of the CIA says that it is a “slam dunk” that Saddam has WMD. And all the Democratic politicians and all the Western intelligence agencies agreed. Everything within this paragraph is well-documented, and I am willing and able to present that documentation if you can find one little valid quote from one little Democratic politician dated before April 2003 to the effect that Saddam had no WMD. Scott Ritter is the only American on record to say there were no WMD before the war started, but Rtter is a little Democratic child molester, not a little Democratic politician.
The troops were issued the appropriate gear, and had to wear it, during the most highly successful military assault in history.
“(T)oday’s closed door session of the senate” was a dum bass political stunt. The Democrats thought the stars were aligning for them: they were creaming their jeans anticipating the death of the 2000th American in the War against the Terrorists, Fitzgerald’s report was due out and they thought the might get Rove, Cheney, or even the President, and the Miers nomination was in trouble. So how did all this work out for the Dims? Most of the citizenry still support the troops, things continue to improve in Iraq, Fitzgerald said that the results of his investigation had nothing to do with Iraq or the CIA, and the President’s base lined up rock-solid behind him when he nominated Alito.
So what did the Dims do? They threw a temper tantrum. BFD.
Posted by scorp on Nov 2, 2005 at 11:50 PM Speaking of WMDs,
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/f02/web2/kamlin.htmll
Posted by jams on Nov 3, 2005 at 12:10 AM Scorp, You can see these speeches on film, as i said, they are included in the Moore film, if they are recorded in some printed record somewhere, I am not sure where I would look for that, maybe some TV network archives.
Thousands of Iranians and Kurds died, true, with chemicals sold to Saddam by the US, Britain, and Germany. Easy to assume he still had such weapons years later if you completely disregard the weapons inspectors. Forget what a politician might say, it was Politicians that supported Saddam through the 80,s, Pinochet in the 70,s, etc, etc, Bush looks into Putin’s eyes and sees a soul mate, are we to fashion policy around that? The intelligence community was not all on board with the WMD claims, the inspectors had destroyed all they found, shelf life took care of the rest, and, again, the inspectors in country in the run up to the war found nothing. We could have waited, if WMD was our cassus belli, we could have waited if regime change was our aim, it wasn’t worth a single american life, we could have waited if spreading democracy was our aim, it wasn;t worth a single american life. Our aim was hegemony in the region we get our oil from, saving a failing and illegitimate presidency and taking out an enemy of Israel’s. Even less reason to lose a single american life. And as Perle said, it wasn’t a reason the public would have supported, WMD just played better. So they lied about the intelligence, lied about the Al queda connection, the 9/11 connection, and then went in undermanned, undersupplied, and underplanned to actually secure the country once the war was over.
The democrats have been cowardly and complicit in all this, until yesterday. the republicans always try to derail any scrutiny of their actions, 9/11, Iraq, Abu Ghraib, they sure as hell don;t want anyone looking into how they cooked the books and lied to congress to get the resolution, And Fitzgerald will slowly but surely turn these war criminals and traitors against each other in the Plame case, too. You don’t commit perjury in front of a federal grand jury unless the crime you’re trying to hide is even worse.
Posted by Kenneth D. Brown on Nov 3, 2005 at 2:53 AM Brown –
You keep telling me who said what, but you have not had a single quote backing up your position. But here are some quotes for you.
“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real…”
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source
“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force—if necessary—to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source
“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source
“We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction.”
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source
“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source
“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source
“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source
“Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source
“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them.”
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source
Posted by scorp on Nov 3, 2005 at 3:41 AM (Continued)
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source
“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source
“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source
“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source
“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.”
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 | Source
All my evidence says that all these Democrats were gung-ho to get rid of Saddam and his WMD, until after we actually got rid of him. Then they changed their tune. Now these same Democrats are trying to say that President Bush “cooked the books and lied to congress to get the resolution”, as you so delicately put it. Now if you could find one little valid quote from one little Democratic politician dated before April 2003 to the effect that Saddam had no WMD, I would be ever so grateful. Otherwise, fuck off.
Posted by scorp on Nov 3, 2005 at 3:44 AM The sources did not activate when copied. You can check them out at:
http://www.glennbeck.com/news/01302004.shtml
Posted by scorp on Nov 3, 2005 at 3:46 AM as i said, they are included in the Moore film,
Now THERE is an unimpeachable unbiased source from a hard working journalist…
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 3, 2005 at 6:21 AM Saddam had WMD. He gassed his own people. If he didn’t have ‘em anymore, why all the fuss? Let the inspectors do their job, stop interfering with ‘em, and the sanctions get dropped.
Saddam wasn’t a nut case; he actions were quite rational (just ask any Democrat).
So, why the fuss? A logical assumption is that he cleared the deck only long enough until the heat was off.
Isn’t that what drug dealers do when they get raided? Dump the junk down the toilet.
You can always get more, after the Man is gone.
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 3, 2005 at 6:24 AM Yeah, I bet America would have happily sold Saddam some more of those WMD if he would use them on the Iranians again.
Posted by David in Canada on Nov 3, 2005 at 7:07 AM If you believe the war is wrong, then it is in your interest to not support any democratic presidential candidate if they can’t admit publicly that this war is a big mistake.
Lets not make another mistake by supporting a Kerry type of candidate. Check out the website at: www.wordsareimportant.com/notonemore.htm that encourages any potential candidate to declare before February 20, 2006 (President’s Day) that this war was wrong.
Each time we compromise and not vote our conscience is another day that takes us further away from what we want.
Also, while I supported Kucinich, I was disappointed that he chose party loyalty over truth when he withdrew days before the Democratic Convention.
Many of the people I talk to say it is the last time they will compromise and vote for a democratic candidate. If the democratic party can’t get it together and realize that this war was wrong and based on lies and deceit, then we need to find someone who does know, regardless of what party they are (third party candidates). There are other issues, but this is on the front burner as it is defining us as an imperialistic, oppressive society. Not One More!
peace
AG
Posted by password on Nov 3, 2005 at 9:15 AM Let me see if I understand this correctly. Actual Film footage exists of not one, but two cabinet level officials, Powell and Rice, delivering speeches in which they assert that Saddam has been prevented from posessing banned weapons, but because it is included in a film made by a person with whose views you disagree, it can’t be considered. Just watch it once and see/hear what they said. Or don’t. There are lots of politicians on both sides that say untrue things. They are still untrue. These people are all part of the problem. They are beholden to a military industrial complex even bigger than Eisenhower dreamed.
Posted by Kenneth D. Brown on Nov 3, 2005 at 10:17 AM Brown -
There once was a book entitled How to Lie with Statistics. The New York Times and Michael Moron make a regular practice of lying with quotes. The practice ill becomes either of them, and makes killing terrorists and creating democracy more difficult. But we are winning, regardless.
Have you been asleep for the last fifteen years?
Context: Saddam had WMD. The Israelis bombed the Osirak nuclear site in 1988 to end Saddam’s nuclear plans. Saddam gassed Halabja and killed about 5000 Kurdish civilians (Google the photos), mostly women and children (the men were away fighting Saddam’s war against Iran). After Gulf I, the UN passed a series of seventeen Resolutions requiring Saddam to:
1) Stop making war against his neighbors.
2) Stop terrorizing his own people.
3) End his WMD programs. Saddam was forbidden to move or destroy WMD except under UN supervision.
The UN sanctions against Saddam continued in effect from 1991 to 2003, and have never been rescinded, but have been superceded by events. During the time when Saddam was obligated to cooperate with the UN in eliminating his WMD, he consistently hid his WMD efforts and obfuscated his actions. The UN’s position at the time of the start of hostilities in March 2003, and the positions of Hans Blix and Mohammed El-Baradei, were that Saddam had WMD. It was only later that Liberals and leftists said that Saddam had no WMD. If Saddam had no WMD in 2003, he was still in violation of all seventeen UN Resolutions, because he was forbidden to move or destroy WMD except under UN supervision and direction.
Posted by scorp on Nov 3, 2005 at 8:13 PM (Continued)
I can’t find the Rice quote from the Moron film. But the Powell quote was from an interview in Egypt in February 2001. What Moron (and you) say that Powell said, is not the message that Powell was trying to deliver to his Egyptian hosts. Here is every single mention that Powell made of WMD from the interview:
The first quote is from Powell’s opening remarks, and is one of a list of items that the Egyptians and Americans were discussing:
We (Mubarak and Powell) also discussed the need to relieve the burden on the Iraqi people whilst strengthening controls on Saddam Hussein’s efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction and the means for their delivery.
This is Powell’s discussion on WMD, and it includes the quote Moron used in his film:
We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister (Egypt) and I and the President (Egypt) and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions—the fact that the sanctions exist—not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein’s ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq, and these are policies that we are going to keep in place, but we are always willing to review them to make sure that they are being carried out in a way that does not affect the Iraqi people but does affect the Iraqi regime’s ambitions and the ability to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and we had a good conversation on this issue.
The next quote refers to Russian and American concerns that terrorist states, including Saddam, might develop WMD and delivery systems:
I was very impressed, as is President Bush, impressed by the fact that in the recent proposal they (Russians) put forward to NATO, they indicated that they understand that there is a danger from missiles that are carrying warheads—that are weapons of mass destruction.
Powell’s last comment in the interview was in response to a question about how great a threat Saddam really presented. Egyptian Foreign Minister Moussa said that Saddam was not a threat to Egypt, but that the Gulf States were rightly concerned. Powell said:
May I just add a p.s. that if I was a Kuwaiti and I heard leaders in Baghdad claiming that Kuwait is still a part of Iraq and it’s going to be included in the flag and the seal, if I knew they were continuing to try to find weapons of mass destruction, I would have no doubt in my mind who those weapons were aimed at. They are being aimed at Arabs, not at the United States or at others. Yes, I think we should…he (Saddam) has to be contained until he realizes the errors of his ways.
http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-cairo.htm
Posted by scorp on Nov 3, 2005 at 8:20 PM (Continued)
So if you read Powell’s whole interview, Egypt and America were both concerned about Saddam’s WMD. That seems right, since at the time, all the UN Security Council, all the Western intelligence agencies, and all the American politicians, Republicans and Democrats alike, said that Saddam had WMD and that he was a threat to his neighbors and to the USA. This information was prominently available in all the news media at the time. Don’t you remember anything at all from that time period?
He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction.
So what does this mean? All the people and all the agencies mentioned above already were in agreement that Saddam had WMD. It means that the UN inspectors, when they were allowed to operate, and the sanctions against Iraq, and the Coalition flights had some success in preventing Saddam from developing additional WMD. That is all that it means.
Michael Moron has one obscure quote from an obscure Powell interview, takes it out of context, ignores the overall message of the interview, lies about its meaning, and passes it off as proof of – something. But that is what Michael Moron does, repeatedly, on many topics. The question is, why do a large number of elite Liberals fall for this crap? Are they that gullible? That stupid? That deranged? All of the above? D is the correct answer.
Posted by scorp on Nov 3, 2005 at 8:23 PM Thanks Scorp. I don’t have the time or patience to gather the information you find/found. Excellent rebuttal.
Posted by wolf on Nov 3, 2005 at 8:39 PM Ditto.
(Moore quoted someone out of context??
—Scandalous!)
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 3, 2005 at 9:06 PM My sincerest apologies for the faulty link. This is the corrected one.
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/f02/web2/kamlin.html
Posted by jams on Nov 3, 2005 at 9:31 PM For whatever reason, between typing and posting, a space is added and an extra “t” is put in the end of the address.
Posted by jams on Nov 3, 2005 at 9:32 PM “(T)oday’s closed door session of the senate” was a dum bass political stunt. The Democrats thought the stars were aligning for them: they were creaming their jeans anticipating the death of the 2000th American in the War against the Terrorists, Fitzgerald’s report was due out and they thought the might get Rove, Cheney, or even the President, and the Miers nomination was in trouble. So how did all this work out for the Dims? Most of the citizenry still support the troops, things continue to improve in Iraq, Fitzgerald said that the results of his investigation had nothing to do with Iraq or the CIA, and the President’s base lined up rock-solid behind him when he nominated Alito.
So what did the Dims do? They threw a temper tantrum. BFD.
More details today.
The purpose of the Dim’s temper tantrum was to rally their base. But there are two small problems with that:
1) The Rep’s base is larger than the Dim’s base.
2) The Dim’s base is a bunch of insane Liberals.
Harry Reid made it all perfectly clear after his temper tantrum:“We know that there were no [weapons of mass destruction] now in Iraq. We didn’t know it at the time. We know now that we didn’t know at the time that there was no Al Qaeda connection. We know now that we didn’t know then that there was no 9/11 connection. We know now that they had no plan for winning the peace. We didn’t know that at the time,” Reid, D-Nev., told reporters after the closed session ended.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,174187,00.html
Did you get all that?
Also today, CBS (of all people!) had a marvelous take on Harry’s temper tantrum. Money quote:
The congressional branch of the Democratic Party has abjectly failed to conduct effective oversight of Iraq-issues since 9/11. They voted for war and then wanted to be let off the hook. They did not use their clout and expertise and control the American intelligence apparatus during the Clinton era to marshal effective investigations the administration’s case for war contemporaneously. They have barely been unable to force potent, effective post-mortems.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/02/opinion/meyer/main1003357.shtml
Posted by scorp on Nov 3, 2005 at 10:19 PM “Therefore, although Iraq probably does have BWs, and weapons of mass destruction in general, war with Iraq cannot be justified at this time since Iraq would not and probably could not use any weapons of mass destruction.”
The concluding sentence from the link supplied by jams above.
From my pov, if Iraq wanted to use WMD, they would not have needed or desired to use missiles. Much better would be to use the terrorist methods they (Saddam) embraced - supply suicide nuts with weapons and money and set them to it. Perhaps in a US subway, perhaps in Israel, perhaps not at all. But still a worry we would have, if not for the ouster of Saddam.
Posted by wolf on Nov 3, 2005 at 10:39 PM THERE IS NO VALID JUSTIFICATION FOR shaunb62’s POST!!!
But that’s ok. We are an inclusive group here, and welcome intelligent discourse. I gather you are against the war? Would you have preferred to keep the sanctions going, which were killing the innocent children of Iraq? Or abolish them and expect that Saddam would mellow as time went by (Gee, those poor guys in the shredders, what a shame)? Or some other option?
Posted by wolf on Nov 3, 2005 at 10:44 PM Please take the time to review the history from a perspective other than that which is fed to you by our so-called press. All of you insist that the perspective given by those espousing your ideology are correct without fault.
Try reading the Iraqi Liberation Act. Tell me where it states that the LAW allows the use of American forces for the purpose of ousting Saddam Hussein.
Read some of the articles at the attached link and learn that “Bush senior decided that the best course of action was to contain Saddam, and allow him to be strong enough to maintain order domestically, and weak enough not to threaten his neighbours. “
Go to the following link and read the articles contained therein. http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/8245212D-39CC-4E6E-80FF-2E1F29F72BC5.htm<
Stop making excuses for Democrats playing follow the leader on voting to go to war in Iraq. Between the lies of the Republican administration and the shallowness of democrats in fearing election disasters. They’ve all made a mess of this.
Instead of choosing sides. Choose to be informed!!!!
Posted by shaunb62 on Nov 3, 2005 at 10:45 PM Another history lesson.
WMD were not the only rationale for going after Saddam. It was merely the trigger. Remember the Axis of Evil speech? There were plenty of reasons to take out Saddam, all of which have been reiterated here.
The only difference is that, as scorp has laid out, unlike the Dems and their belated Hey, we can’t find any, so there must not have ever been any rhetoric, these other rationale weren’t made up after the fact.
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 3, 2005 at 11:31 PM jams, the long URLs get broken, extra letters and spaces too.
Check it out. Using tinyURL.com is easy.
Posted by David in Canada on Nov 4, 2005 at 1:38 AM So, let me see if I understand this correctly. Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction (which he didn’t unleash during the invasion - why not?), he had a history of oppression (but that was okay during the Iran - Iraq war) and as your president put, “Well, he was a bad man.”
Well God damn, there’s a lot a bad men running around out there, so, what nation (North Korea, Iran, Sudan, Syria, etc) will you choose to invade next? Where does it stop?
Are you so dense as to believe that WMD’s, the killing of a few thousand Kurds, and his (Saddam’s) indifference towards the sanctions were the instigation for war. If these acts were the predicate for invasion, why didn’t we invade Saudi Arabia when it was identified that the majority of the hijackers were Saudi nationals?
Come on, get a grip. . . 9/11 happened not because of botched intelligence dissemination, but deliberately to justify a “war on terror”.
Think about it. If the 9/11 attacks had never happened, do you think that there would have been the same overwhelming support of the decision to go to war? Especially given that UNSCOM and the US Inspection teams turned up nothing!!!
Read the contradiction in the reasons for “Missing 9/11” and “Going to war against Saddam Hussein” both were based on intelligence gathered by the same organizations. So, how could the same intelligence community be soooo wrong about Atta and crew, yet soooo right about Saddam.
Ya’ll are being played and you don’t even no it.
Posted by shaunb62 on Nov 4, 2005 at 3:45 AM Well God damn, there’s a lot a bad men running around out there, so, what nation (North Korea, Iran, Sudan, Syria, etc) will you choose to invade next? Where does it stop?
When all the bad men are taken care of…
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 4, 2005 at 12:59 PM “Bush senior decided that the best course of action was to contain Saddam, and allow him to be strong enough to maintain order domestically, and weak enough not to threaten his neighbours. “
In learning from history, one must be able to understand the whys, as well as the whats and whens…
If the 9/11 attacks had never happened, do you think that there would have been the same overwhelming support of the decision to go to war?
Bush Sr didn’t finish the job in 1991 because it was before 9/11, before the world would open its eyes to the terrifying realities and dangers.
al Qaeda aptly demonstrated that for us.
I don’t need nebulous conspiracy theories to explain that.
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 4, 2005 at 1:03 PM So, let me see if I understand this correctly. Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction (which he didn’t unleash during the invasion - why not?), he had a history of oppression (but that was okay during the Iran - Iraq war) and as your president put, “Well, he was a bad man.”
- because he knew we had more…
- it was certainly unfortunate. But, if one extrapolates the logic of the current anti-war rhetoric, we shouldn’t have done anything about then, either. So, how come the criticizism? Doesn’t that contradict your own logic?
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 4, 2005 at 1:13 PM shaun: Are you so dense as to believe that WMD’s, the killing of a few thousand Kurds, and his (Saddam’s) indifference towards the sanctions were the instigation for war. If these acts were the predicate for invasion, why didn’t we invade Saudi Arabia when it was identified that the majority of the hijackers were Saudi nationals?
in·sti·ga·tion n. deliberate and intentional triggering
I never said WMD was the trigger, merely one of the rationales.
Jay: WMD were not the only rationale for going after Saddam. It was merely the trigger.
ra·tion·ale n. Fundamental reasons; the basis
trig·gered tr.v. To set off; initiate
I didn’t know that the Saudis of 9/11 were official representatives of the Saudi Royalty. Saudis, by the way, whose movement to America was facilitated by Iranians. I agree with your logic. Iran should be next.
Besides, what’s <u>the killing of a few thousand Kurds</u> between friends, huh?
sar·casm n. A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule.
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 4, 2005 at 1:28 PM ouch!
I just burned myself!
Oh well, I am only human….
I gotta stop blogging before my morning cup of coffee…
No digging myself out of this, huh?
But I’ll try. After a pot of coffee!
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 4, 2005 at 1:33 PM I fear I am going to have to stop reacting to slurs and bad logic so early in the morning. My dyslexia tends to kick in when I am in a semi-somnolent state.
To reargue my last posting,
Are you so dense as to believe that WMD’s, the killing of a few thousand Kurds, and his (Saddam’s) indifference towards the sanctions were the instigation for war. If these acts were the predicate for invasion, why didn’t we invade Saudi Arabia when it was identified that the majority of the hijackers were Saudi nationals?
Yes, I am that dense.
To argue that those acts are sufficient for an invasion of Saudi Arabia belays the point that,
A) not only has Saudi Arabia never used WMD, but they don’t have them even if they wanted to use them,
B) they didn’t kill a few thousand Kurds, and
C) they had no sanctions imposed upon them to be indifferent about.
If there is logic to the assertion that because most of the terrorists held Saudi citizenship and therefore we must invade Saudi Arabia, I would then argue
A) because of the transportation that the Iranians facilitated across their borders and their territory for the muscle men of the 9/11 terrorists as they made their way to America,
B) because of the safe harbor the Iranians are current providing to senior al Qaeda staff and more than one of Bin Laden’s sons in downtown Tehran,
then that is a good enough argument for an invasion of Iran.
Perhaps we could use the same argument for an invasion of Syria in the wake of the UN sanctions for the assassination of Lebanese opposition leader Hariri, or for allowing Syrian soil to be used as a rear echelon for the Iraqi insurgency?
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 4, 2005 at 6:35 PM But, this stands,
Besides, what’s <u>the killing of a few thousand Kurds</u> between friends, huh?
sar·casm n. A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule.
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 4, 2005 at 6:36 PM Reuters:
Saddam accepted UAE exile plan to avert Iraq warhttp://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticleSearch.aspx?storyID=282657+28-Oct-20 005+RTRS&srch=saddam+accepted+UAE+exile+plan
From Israel’s Newspaper in an interview with the neocons:
In the course of the past year, a new belief has emerged in the town: the belief in war against Iraq. That ardent faith was disseminated by a small group of 25 or 30 neoconservatives, almost all of them Jewish, almost all of them intellectuals (a partial list: Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, William Kristol, Eliot Abrams, Charles Krauthammer), people who are mutual friends and cultivate one another and are convinced that political ideas are a major driving force of history.
such people. And the way to fight the chaos is to create a new world order that will be based on freedom and human rights - and to be ready to use force in order to consolidate this new world. So that, really, is what the war is about. It is being fought to consolidate a new world order, to create a new Middle East.
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=280279
What is this New World Order the neocons are sayinf is the real reason we are in Iraq? Obviously it was not for the CIA trained and funded Saddam.
Posted by beowulf on Nov 4, 2005 at 9:01 PM A subsequent PNAC plan entitled “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategies, Forces and Resources for a New Century,” reveals that the current members of Bush’s cabinet had already planned, before the 2000 presidential election, to take military control of the Gulf region whether Saddam Hussein is in power or not.
The 90-page PNAC document from September 2000 says: “The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.”
Well, that should take care of the Saddam is the reason crowd. The neocons in thei own document says Saddam is not the reason we are in Iraq. This is too easy.
Posted by beowulf on Nov 4, 2005 at 9:04 PM Even should Saddam pass from the scene,” the plan says U.S. military bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain, despite domestic opposition in the Gulf states to the permanent stationing of U.S. troops. Iran, it says, “may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests as Iraq has.”
A “core mission” for the transformed U.S. military is to “fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars,” according to the PNAC.
The strategic “transformation” of the U.S. military into an imperialistic force of global domination would require a huge increase in defense spending to “a minimum level of 3.5 to 3.8 percent of gross domestic product, adding $15 billion to $20 billion to total defense spending annually,” the PNAC plan said.
“The process of transformation,” the plan said, “is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.”
I guess the Bush supporters got the Pearl Harbor they wanted to justify a war.
Posted by beowulf on Nov 4, 2005 at 9:05 PM Absent the not-so-good sarcasm and not-quite veiled innuendo of a conspiracy theory, that sounds good to me.
But to clarify one question that is asked
What is this New World Order the neocons are sayinf is the real reason we are in Iraq? Obviously it was not for the CIA trained and funded Saddam.
No, it is not. The reasons are manifold. Obviously, the strategic interest in the flow of oil is the most immediate one. Even China recognizes the importance of oil to the world’s (or at least her) economy. One does not need to hang ones head in mock shame to acknowledge that.
There is also the point of establishing this “New World Order” (ie, what happens after the Cold War is over) as a free democratic one. The biggest threat to that goal are anarchist-terrorist organizations and the various dictatorial and totalitarian regimes around the world. Again, no mock shame required to acknowledge this.
Just because I speak Chinese, doesn’t mean I want to live in a world dominated by China.
The fact that people interested in the future would analyze this is no different than the Pentagon making war simulations on worst-case scenarios.
The fact they got it right tells me we should be listening harder.
Reminds me of a documentary on PBS the other night about global warming. Seems that because the Pentagon has war-gamed a world devastated by major changes in the climate, it is being taken as proof that the government really believes in global warming.
No. That is just the Pentagon’s job. Prepare for the worst.
Of course, the Jewish remarks would be just plain silly if they weren’t so vilely racist.
(note: to acknowledge that,
the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein
only implies there are more reasons than just Saddam’s brutality to justify the Iraq War, not that the “eliminate Saddam” isn’t sufficient)
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 4, 2005 at 9:32 PM Finally, the link to beowulf’s article about Saddam accepting a UAE exile plan also mentions this,
UAE President Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahayan made the proposal for Saddam to go into exile at an emergency Arab summit just weeks before the U.S.-led war began in March 2003.
But the 22-member Arab League, led by Secretary-General Amr Moussa, refused to consider the initiative.
...
Egypt’s President Hosni Mubarak says in the documentary that the United States had signaled its support for the proposal.Not sure what beowulf’s point was with regard to this article.
Perhaps he didn’t read it?
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 4, 2005 at 9:41 PM Finally (again), after reading beowulf’s other article, I am beginning to doubt the sarcasm that I read into beowulf’s post. His links sure don’t lend much credence to that.
The other link of beowulf’s is the article about the 25 or 30 men of neocons. Now, beowulf doesn’t mention it, but this is actually how that article ends,
Still, it’s not all that simple, Friedman retracts. It’s not some fantasy the neoconservatives invented. It’s not that 25 people hijacked America. You don’t take such a great nation into such a great adventure with Bill Kristol and the Weekly Standard and another five or six influential columnists. In the final analysis, what fomented the war is America’s over-reaction to September 11. The genuine sense of anxiety that spread in America after September 11. It is not only the neoconservatives who led us to the outskirts of Baghdad. What led us to the outskirts of Baghdad is a very American combination of anxiety and hubris.
In other words, 9/11 changed the world.
That’s funny. I think I’ve heard that before somewhere.
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 4, 2005 at 10:18 PM I did in fact read the article, but support of the war is to support the New World Order.
2) The Jewish remarks were cut and pasted from The Israeli article which I suppose you failed to read. I suppose you are calling the Jews racists. That is silly and absurd and the only vile thing is your statement that Jews are racists.
3) My point also is that we trained Saddam at the school of the Americas, armed him, and considered him an allie. your lack of knowledge on the subject explains your blatant support for a war of aggression.
This is no different than the March 15, 2001 article in Janes or the June 26, 2001 article in the Indian daily outling our coming war with Afghanistan. Oh, thats right, you thought it was in response to 911. How cute. I was in the service buddy and we had 17,000 troops on the border ready to enter. At the same time, Britain was running the largest military exercise in living memory in the gulf in September 2001. How convenient for the war mongerers.
Peace brother.
Posted by beowulf on Nov 4, 2005 at 10:31 PM Entering Iraq was the worst mistake we possibly could have made and it has sidetracked us in the war on terror. however, now that we are in Iraq we cant just leave or chaos and anarchy will rule. thats why we all need to elect this man…http://www.walken2008.com/
Posted by sjaydubs on Nov 4, 2005 at 10:43 PM The war on terror is a fraud.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/osamatape2.html
“Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful. This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government.”
Henry Kissinger, Speaking at Evian, France, May 21, 1992. Bilderberg meeting.
“A clique of U.S. industrialists is hell-bent to bring a fascist state to supplant our democratic government and is working closely with the fascist regime in Germany and Italy. I have had plenty of opportunity in my post in Berlin to witness how close some of our American ruling families are to the Nazi regime. They extended aid to help Fascism occupy the seat of power, and they are helping to keep it there.”
William E. Dodd U.S. Ambassador to Germany 1937
Posted by beowulf on Nov 4, 2005 at 11:03 PM My offense at the Jewish slur stands. If it isn’t relevant, why mention it. If it is, why is it relevant?
I never said Saddam was a friend of convenience. I just deny the immorality of it.
And I don’t use my own overseas military experience as proof that I know better than others….
Semper fi, dude
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 4, 2005 at 11:10 PM corrections:
I never said Saddam was not a friend of convenience. I just deny the immorality of it.
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 4, 2005 at 11:16 PM With regards to Kissinger’s quote, to acknowledge the possibility does not imply a belief in the actual reality of it.
With regards to Dodd’s, that fact that there are Americans who do not value liberty also does not imply that there is a facist conspiracy controlling everything the government does.
It is easy to claim, but just because you say it is possible, doesn’t make it so, Joe.
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 4, 2005 at 11:19 PM First, I did not mention it. Israel did. Second, it could be percieved as a conflict of interest as regards to the rebuilding of the middle east. So, the pink elephant bears mentioning.
The history of the neocons dates back to the third international in 1928 under Trotsky. Many of our current necon’s fathers participated and birthed the neocon movement. I will not support closet Communists expanding our government, decimating the constitution with their patriot(enabling act 1933 Germany) qnd bring in the likes of Marcus Wolf(former haed of the East German stazi) and two former KGB generals into the department of fatherland security. I mean “homeland”. You have to forgive my forgetfulness. I tend to get the first one from 1933 under Hitler’s war on terrorism with ours.“I will Sovietize America”-Marcus Wolf
I took an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. And I meant it.
I implore you to read A Clean Break written by the neocons outling attacks on Syria, Iraq, and Iran to better secure Israel. So their loyalty to America first begs the question, Does being Zionist matter? maybe, and it is not antisemetic to ask these questions. They can be addressed in a respectful nonoffensive fasion that can shed light on motivations.
Posted by beowulf on Nov 4, 2005 at 11:31 PM I made a plethora of spelling errors and apologize for lack of professionalism. I will try to better pay attention to detail in the future.
The possibility does exist for our democracy to be supplanted with another model and similiar paradigms have been exercised against other populations to secure power. Remember, the Bush familie’s fortune derived from the liquidation of Nazi assets. I believe the apple did not fall far from the tree. For the record, I am neither Republican nor Democrat and do not engage in partisan bashing. I believe what we see today is no more than an accumilation of what has been developing for decades.
If we do not pull out from Iraq and the war expands to other nations, the potential is there for a world war where I feel both Russia and China could enter the conflict. Is it worth it?
Posted by beowulf on Nov 4, 2005 at 11:52 PM So, beowulf is not responsible for raising the “Jewish” question, yet he now assumes that not only is the Jewish question relevant with regards to this group of 25 or 30 men, but in fact, he now questions their loyalty as Americans over being Zionists.
No, I will not engage that topic.
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 5, 2005 at 1:07 AM Oops. I mean their loyalty as Americans over being Zionists or perhaps Communists….
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 5, 2005 at 1:09 AM If we do not pull out from Iraq and the war expands to other nations, the potential is there for a world war where I feel both Russia and China could enter the conflict. Is it worth it?
As a military man, you really can’t seriously think that even if Russia or China had a mind to intervene, that they effectively could??
The Russian military is a joke, taking more damage post-1989 than anything Clinton did to the American military. And the Chinese have no real effective means to transport troops into the area, whether over the mountains through Central Asia, or by airlift or sealift. Besides, their strategic interests lie in Eastern China, not Western.
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 5, 2005 at 1:14 AM Is it worth it?
Yes. In fact, taking the neo-con agenda (as beowulf understands it) to heart, now is absolutely the time to strike.
Syria, Iran, North Korea. All have bad boy reputations, reputations that are amply justified. What kind of world do we want to live in? One that accepts the Tyrannical rule of Despots merely because they are isolated and can be safely ignored? As the world ignored Rwanda?
Or one that fights for the rights of the individuals, not just individuals who already enjoy the fruits of liberty, but especially those who do not.
Is not being a progressive all about social justice? Is not it our moral progressive obligation, as beneficiaries enjoying the good life that true liberty has given us, to defend and fight for those who have no power, no hope of attaining that same basic right of liberty?
Or do we sit in isolation behind two great oceans and tell the world, go to hell?
What more righteous battle for progressives than that?
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 5, 2005 at 1:28 AM Beowulf -
Besides the abject silliness of your conspiracy theories, you have some of your facts wrong, and you ignore the context of the situation in the Middle East in the last part of the Twentieth Century.
After the Qassim assassination attempt, Saddam escaped to Syria and Egypt, where he attended school. Saddam also made a state visit to France in 1976. None of his biographies list attendance at the School of the Americas (Western Hemisphere Institute of Security Cooperation, WHISC), which is, after all, conducted in Spanish specifically for students from Latin America.
Every Liberal makes a big thing about the USA and it’s on-and-off cooperation with Saddam. BFD. These same Liberals do not say a word about the USA’s on-and-off cooperation with communism. When Hitler attacked the Soviet Union, Hitler was perceived to be the bigger threat and we supported the Soviets with billions of dollars of food, supplies, and odinance. We offered to extend Marshall Plan aid to the Soviets after the war, and they refused, preferring to act out their ridiculous international socialist fantasies.
After WWII, oil became a central energy resource in the world, and the Middle East had lots of oil. There were many contending entities, including the Gulf States, some of whom had major reserves of oil, Arabs versus Persians, Sunni versus Shia, the Soviets, who had lots of oil and an agenda, and the oil consumers, principally Western Europe, Japan, and the United States. Iran and Iraq were local powers, and both would have loved to control all the oil in the region, just as the Soviet Union would have.
The United States’ first requirement (agenda item, if you wish) was to keep the oil flowing. Stopping the oil would have soon wrecked the economies of Western Europe and Japan, and would have damaged the USA. Stopping the oil, for whatever reason, could very well result in a local or non-local war, a situation to be avoided if at all possible. Then as now, Iran was threatening dire consequences for the USA and Israel after Khomeini came to power. The Gulf oil powers could not stop the oil without hurting their own economies, but the Soviet Union would have joyfully disrupted the world economy in any way possible.
In the early 1990s, the Soviet Union collapsed of inefficiency and corruption. That radically changed the equations in the Middle East and in the world. With no realistic threat from the Soviet Union, we could deal more forthrightly with genocide, aggression, and terror.
So, during the Cold War, the USA was able to keep the oil flowing, by playing the contending factions off one against the other. Did it work? Yes, it did. Was it perfect? Of course not. Do the Liberals ignorantly complain about it? ‘Deed they do. Does anyone really care what a Liberal thinks? I don’t know, I certainly don’t. Does a Liberal think? There is no evidence that they do.
Posted by scorp on Nov 5, 2005 at 4:01 AM Republicans during the Clinton-Gore administration stated repeatedly that the United States shouldn’t put our men and women in harm’s way unless it was absolutely necessary.
So, it is interesting that neither party addresses the real problem with any sincerity which is the astonishing ineptness of the 15 intelligence agencies which were providing such “unequivocal proof” as far back as 1998 concerning Saddam Hussein’s possession of W.M.D.
It wasn’t until Bush-Cheney ascended to the White House via judicial fiat and not until after the tragedy of 9/11 that we were told that if we didn’t take out Saddam Hussein immediately we would soon see mushroom clouds over U.S. cities.
On September 10, for example, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was talking about cutting military programs and personnel and Attorney General John Ashcroft was demanding a $50 million cut in the Department of Justice and the FBI budgets. Al Qaeda and terrorism were not even on their radar scopes.
Now that we know there were no W.M.D. either before the Iraq War or after, we must somehow try to figure out why $40 billion annual funding of the intelligence agencies resulted in such catastrophically flawed information. When G. W. Bush’s chief arms inspector, David Kay, testified before the U.S. Congress that “We were all wrong” it is clear that this was the biggest intelligence failure in the history of our country and one which so far has put over 2,035 U.S. military in body bags and tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens in their graves.
Accusations that the Clinton-Gore administration knew the same information that Bush used to go to war with Iraq would be credible but for the fact that the Republican-controlled U.S. Congress in no way supported that option, claiming that America should not be the world’s policemen nor should we be involved with nation-building.The Republicans and the entire Bush-Cheney administration who dismissed the Hart-Rudman report which was given to the Bush administration in January 2001. What did Bush do with it? He gave it to his newly-appointed FEMA director, Joe Allbaugh who in turn buried in the dead letter files.
That report warned bluntly that terrorists probably will attack the US with nuclear, chemical or biological weapons at some point in the near future. In Bush’s daily presidential briefing in July 2001 he also received information that terrorist would use hijacked airliners to use as bombs against American buildings and other vulnerable targets.
Republicans were so hostile to the Clinton administration that they voted to withhold support for our U.S. military in Kosovo after Slobodan Milosevic was finally deposed. In June 1999 the Republicans had argued that the Kosovo peacekeeping efforts would further strain an already stretched Pentagon budget. And despite the president’s letter, 142 Republicans still voted for the spending cutoff date.
If our U.S. military was “strained” in 1999 what is it like now? And if, as David Kay stated in his testimony before Congress that “We were all wrong,” how does that absolve the Bush administration from waging a war that was based on flawed intelligence information and forged documents and one which has now become G. W. Bush’s Achilles heel?
Unfortunately, you Bush continues to “catapult the propaganda” (his words) that Democrats, not Republicans, should accept responsibility for the disastrous consequences of the Iraq War, a war that was launched on the watch of G. W. Bush who undoubtedly is still looking for those W.M.D. under his desk in the Oval Office.The families of over 2,035 U. S. military dead and over 15,000 wounded are not laughing, however. And spin it all you want, nothing of the sort happened during the Clinton-Gore administration. “Bush lied and people died” is an accurate assessment of the policies of a deeply flawed and wrong-headed Bush administration.
Posted by Richard2 on Nov 5, 2005 at 4:27 AM 1)I have posted no theories, only facts that you cowardly shy away from with the words “conspiracy” as if that somehow disarms me while you justify murdering tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians. You should be ashamed of yourselves. All you are liberating the Iraqis from are their lives.
2) I am not a liberal, but believe in the constitution as it is written, not as you would abolish it with your traitorous Patriot Acts. Funny how you want to liberate other nations while destroying our freedoms at home. History has a way of repeating itself I suppose.3) As Teddy Roosevelt once said, “Those who do not question the actions of their president are servile, cowardly, and guilty of treason.
What questions have you raised for your president lately or do you more closely fall within the above description?
Posted by beowulf on Nov 5, 2005 at 8:21 AM 1) A conspiracy are facts tied together by conjecture and innuendo
2) Never said you were a liberal, only a conspiracy nut. This blog is a progressive blog. My comments about social justice were directed to the readership at large. Never said I supported the Patriot Act. Never said I didn’t. Only someone well versed and well practiced with the methodology of conspiracy theories would make that conclusion. Anything wrong with wanting to liberate other nations from tyranny?
3) Your greatest source of “facts” are quotes and unrelated bits of history. You offer no concrete thread.
I do not fall in line with your above innuendos. But that doesn’t mean I don’t support the foreign policy that the President is conducting.
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 5, 2005 at 11:23 AM we must somehow try to figure out why $40 billion annual funding of the intelligence agencies resulted in such catastrophically flawed information.
I don’t care how much money is thrown at intel. Ya gotta have human intel on the ground, yet some of most elite Liberal institutions don’t allow the CIA or the DOD to recruit on campus. It is disingenuous to cry that our intel agencies failed but then ignore the fact we slam the door tight on the very group of intelligent, educated people who are needed most to gather that intel.
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 5, 2005 at 11:27 AM Richard,
Times change.
For example, the only reason Bush Sr. didn’t go all the way to Baghdad was because the vast majority of people didn’t want to believe that what happened over made little difference to our lives.
9/11changed that.
Neither political party is homogenous. Each is made up of several constituencies. Both parties have their hawks; both have their doves. Both parties have progressives; both have their reactionaries.
The Democratic Party is currently under the sway of a group of people whose only agenda is to oppose Bush, regardless of the politics or consequences, a far cry from the Clinton days. And the Republican Party is more concerned with winning the war, than the very progressive social programs they pushed in the mid 90s.
Times change.
In the wake of 1989, with the fall of the Cold War, people from both parties wanted to believe in the “peace dividend”. Clinton spent that the way a drunken sailor spends his pay. Most of my buddies who were still in the service told me horror stories how badly the military was being gutted. Even after 9/11, the consequences of that drunken spending spree left supply and logistics woefully underfunded and training budgets slashed to the point of being a joke.
Republicans opposed the Kosovo fiasco as much for a lack of resources and military capability as anything else. Many people opposed the effort in Kosovo because the military wasn’t given the support it needed to do the job. That, and Clinton’s abject failure in Somalia clearly demonstrated he didn’t have the backbone and stomach that a commander-in-chief needs to make the tough decisions. People were more afraid of another Black Hawk Down scenario than anything Pat Buchanan or Pat Robertson were screaming about (both, by the way, are no longer an important part of the party now).
Politicians from both sides of the aisle are good in thinking in term of election cycles, not long term commitments.
Let’s not fall into the same trap.
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 5, 2005 at 12:01 PM You do fall in line in fact.
1)FACT. Many of the supposed hyjackers were found alive. BBC
2)FACT: The Bin Laden videos were proven fakes by both Germans and Swiss authorities
3)FACT: Many confusing drills involving hyjacked aircraft were ran on 911
4)FACT: The hyjacker patsies were harbored in apartments rented out by FBI informants- San Fransisco Chronicle
5)FACT: David Schippers was given three file boxes outlining an attack on lower Manhatten by FBI field agents that were threatened with arrest if they pursued the investigation. ie: W199I
6)FACT: Most fire fighters and police on the scene interviewed said the towers were brought down by controlled demolition and vindicated by the release of their communications of that fateful day.
7)FACT: Marvin Bush owned the security company in charge of security at the towers and Dulles airport where one of the drills of flying planes into buildings occurred at.
8)FACT: The chief of the ISI who was meeting with Porter Goss the morning of 911 wired $100,000 to Mohamid Atta.
9)FACT: Silverstein, the owner of the trade centers is quoted as saying that he had to pull the building and then it came down (Building 7)
10)FACT: The put options against United and American airlines went up 1,200% the week prior to the attacks and were purchased by Israelis
11)FACT: Some “hyjackers” trained at NAS Pensacola
12)FACT: Bush’s secretary of Labor…Reynolds, Bob Dole’s chief of staff Stanley Hilton, Britain’s environmental minister Meacher, Germany’s defense minister, Congressman Wellstone and Cynthia Mckinney all concurr that it was an inside job with many, many more whistleblowers.
These are a few of the thousand facts that do not fit nicely into your reality. Everyone of these facts are researchable, solid, and true. All counter the Koolaid you drink.
You say theory…I say documentd fact and discovery. So you love the people who were intrusted with protecting this country from a terrorist attack but wrote about how they could benefit from it. I find your loyalty interesting. George Washington would have rode you out on a rail. You may not have fit in with the American revolution, but I bet you would have made a great German. They drank the Koolaid too and look where it got them. I just hope your not one of those whiney “we were just following orders” type that littered the Nuremberg trials. It want wash this time either just like it did not work out well with the Torries in Washington’s day.
You need to wake up and support the Republic and not the empire. I know you can find the decensy in your heart not to sell your children into slavery while you scamper off on foreign adventures. As Congressman Ron Paul was kind enough to point out, Bush is turning America into a police state.
I am curious too as to your take on torture since recently the president was miffed at the thought that the American people may not find that the most wholesome activity in which to engage in. Since you support his foreign policy, and since the pentagons own reports conclusively show that 70 to 90% of detainees are innocent, do you get personal gratification with their abuse. Does that titilate you since you support his policies abroad. Clinton killed over a million Iraqis with his sanctions but I bet your not going to be out done by a stinking Democrat. You know you can kill more if you set your mind to it. After all, isn’t that your dream. Spreading bodies..err..I..mean..democracy. Halalujah, you bombed Fallujah. Can I get an amen to that.
You speak of intel, but Valery Plame’s Brewster Jennings, designed as front to gather intel on WMDs, was outed by your administration. All agents were compromised and the program shut down. Is there a black kettlle around here, because the pot is shouting.
Posted by beowulf on Nov 5, 2005 at 3:26 PM Beowulf -
Every single one of your “facts” is wrong.
This is why conspiracy theorists, such as yourself, have nothing to contribute to rational discourse.
Posted by scorp on Nov 5, 2005 at 4:27 PM I am curious too as to your take on torture since recently the president was miffed at the thought that the American people may not find that the most wholesome activity in which to engage in. Since you support his foreign policy, and since the pentagons own reports conclusively show that 70 to 90% of detainees are innocent, do you get personal gratification with their abuse. Does that titilate you since you support his policies abroad.
That is about as good enough of an example of conspiracy (il)logic that I have ever come across…
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 5, 2005 at 5:54 PM Jay Cline, you state, “For example, the only reason Bush Sr. didn’t go all the way to Baghdad was because the vast majority of people didn’t want to believe that what happened over made little difference to our lives.”
Not true at all. George H. W. Bush and military analysts in 1991 believed that going into Baghdad would inflame the entire Middle East Arab countries and decided that it was not worth risking the lives of more American soldiers to continue the war. The main objective then was to kick out Iraq’s army from Kuwait. Many believed that Saddam Hussein would be overthrown by his own people who had already suffered during the 1980s in the war with Iran.
As long as I’ve been posting on this site over the past year I’ve never justified much of what went on in the Clinton administration. But your comments and others insist on “Bush can do no wrong” and continue harp on Clinton’s failures without regard to the horrendous mistakes and poor leadership in the Bush administration are appalling.
You totally ignore the biggest error for the fiasco that Iraq has turned out to be. If you go back and read the earlier rhetoric during the buildup to Bush’s war it was Eric Shinseki, the top Army commander who testified in front of the U.S. Congress that in order to secure Iraq and quash the resistance our military would need between 300,000 and 500,000 troops on the ground.
That advice was dismissed by Rumsfeld over the objections of the Pentagon. That plus disbanding the trained Iraqi military who could have minimized our own military casualties was also a huge mistake.
It was a mistake that only now the Bush administration is willing to admit since their “new” policy which is to invite the former Hussein army to rejoin the Iraqi forces.
Even our own military commanders and military analysts have said the “dissolution of the 400,000-member Iraqi army in May 2003 drove many thousands of Sunni Arab soldiers and officers into the insurgency while depriving the country of a force that could help restore order.” Sad to say, over 2,000 families of the dead U. S. soldiers and 15,000 wounded would find little solace in this belated policy.
However, it seems that the loyal Bush Bootlickers are still sticking their heads in the sand and continue to “catapult the propaganda” that Bush can do no wrong.
It is the single biggest issue and the main reason why Bush’s approval ratings with the American public have dropped to 35% and why now, for the first time since Bush ascended to office, that Americans distrust this entire lying, inept Bush administration.
Consider the latest Wall Street Journal-NBC poll which states, “For the first time in the poll, Bush’s approval rating has sunk below 40 percent, while the percentage believing the country is heading in the right direction has dipped below 30 percent. In addition, a sizable plurality prefers a Democratic-controlled Congress.”
I remember how loudly the Bush adorers like Rush Limbaugh and Fox News Network were crowing over Bush’s 90% approval, using those numbers to pillory his critics and opponents. Oh how the mighty have fallen!
Posted by Richard2 on Nov 5, 2005 at 6:38 PM Jay Cline,
You are unable to address the facts and all can be proved with the AP, Reuters, .gov, and .mil. You are unable to prove them wrong so you bury your head in the sands of ignorance crying all lies while defending a failed administration full of criminals.
You also never answered as to your stand on torture. You also failed to address if this administration was right in trying to silence Joe Wilson by outing his wife over the forged Niger documents. If forged documents are being used, then the case for war was hollow and weak. Lies were needed. These questions deal with truths, not theories. The American people are tired of being lied to. Bush lied, our troops died, and no I will not get over it.
Posted by beowulf on Nov 5, 2005 at 10:50 PM Transcripts of an interview from 911 the road to tyranny
http://www.infowars.com/transcript_schippers.htmlMilitary games one year prior to 911. pay attention to page 2
http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/Contingency_Planning.html
Agency planned exercise on Sept 11
http://www.boston.com/news/packages/sept11/anniversary/wire_stories/0903_plan ne_exercise.htm
Operation Northwoods from ABC News:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/print?id=92662Hyjack suspects alive and well from BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm
http://msnbc.msm.com/id/3067635/print/1/displaymode/1098/
investigation thwarted by Bush administration
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,589168,00.htmlFAA managers destroyed tapes
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A6632-2004May6?language=printerAre their anymore theories you would like me to prove.
I can do this all day. Their are enough unanswered questions about that day used as justification for their “multigenerational war” that need to be addressed before we commit our children and grandchildren to what may indeed be the greatest fraud perpetrated on the world.
The above are just a feww examples of each topic that include many others from each listed.
www.911proof.com carries the firefighter tapes as well.
Disprove their veracity and engage the points made and end the name calling.
Posted by beowulf on Nov 6, 2005 at 12:00 AM Richard -
Remember during the 2004 elections, Kerry and the Democrats, based on polling numbers, thought they were winners, and were astonished to find that President Bush won the actual vote. The Dims were so disappointed and so shocked, they immediately started talking about election fraud, but virtually all of the documented fraud was by Liberal brownshirt thugs, not by Republicans or Conservatives.
http://www.ac4vr.com/news/acvrnews080205.html
So, now you are joyful that President Bush’s poll numbers are down, but be prepared to be astonished, disappointed, and shocked all over.
The New Editor has analyzed three recent, and prominent, polls, and sure enough, CBS News poll, AP/Ipsos poll, and ABC/Washington Post poll all agreed that President Bush’s approval ratings were 40% or less. What they did not tell you was that the people who were counted in the polls, all three polls, were heavily weighted toward the Democrats. So, yes, if you want to make one side or the other look good in a poll, you can do so by weighting the respondents in your favor, but so what? Since the Republicans won the election, there would seem to be no logic in polling more Democrats than Republicans if you want an accurate result. But perhaps the Liberal Old Media is not looking for an accurate result.
You may wish to quibble with the numbers, but all the documentation is available in The New Editor website:
http://www.theneweditor.com/index.php?/archives/1301-More-Fun-With-Polls-.... .html
Even the poll you quoted, NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, was weighted 42-35 in favor of Democrats, and that was the least biased of the polls:
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/poll20050914.pdf
The real question is why Old Media consistently produces biased polls, and, more importantly, why are certain segments of the citizenry so gullible and so ignorant? Buy you books and send you to school, and still you don’t learn anything. Do you just enjoy being astonished, disappointed, and shocked? The Republican ascendancy has been in effect ever since the Dims screwed up the Vietnam War, and if you keep lying to yourself and allowing the Old Media to lie to you, your situation will never improve.
Posted by scorp on Nov 6, 2005 at 2:52 AM Links-
Copied wrong.
theneweditor link should end in “/1301-More-Fun_With-polls-....html”
wsj link should end in “/poll20050914.pdf”
Posted by scorp on Nov 6, 2005 at 3:16 AM Correction-
theneweditor link should end in “/1301-More-Fun-With-Polls-....html”
Posted by scorp on Nov 6, 2005 at 3:18 AM Following the advice of the hawks above, it is clear that we must simply kill everyone who may choose to do us harm before they get the chance. How many folks do you suppose that is and what sort of regime does that make us? Does a government like that ever really run out of enemies?
If you are still a supporter of this Iraq war today, it is pretty clear that there is no expense, no amount of carnage, and no shame that will change your mind.
In the mean time, why does making things worse always look like such a good idea to you guys? We are to the point now where an Islamic state that doesn’t immediately collapse into chaos is starting to sound like a victory.
Posted by GrayArea on Nov 6, 2005 at 7:28 AM “The central inteligence agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media” -William Colby, former director, CIA
I guess that would be liberal for those that still believe in the false left right paradigm. It is amazing adults still fall for this.
enlarge the size of the national budget, double the size of the BATF, gun confiscations of middle class Americans in New Orleans, double the trade deficit,double the size of the federal government, engage in nation building, and curtailing civil liberties. Follow NAFTA with CAFTA and soon FTAA to nip away at our soverignty. All in the name of freedom. The new consevatives. I believe I like Washington’s conservatism better.
All this reminds me of double-speak in 1984:War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
-p.16
Posted by beowulf on Nov 6, 2005 at 3:00 PM Beowulf -
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
Originality is a Virtue
Posted by scorp on Nov 6, 2005 at 4:18 PM Scorp,
Tell me why your leader is out promoting outsoucing of American jobs. He has claimed that our jobs are our greatest export. He pushed through CAFTA, (which I watched Kerry help edit while watching CSPAN), and is currently working toward the FTAA. And, according to CNN, Lou Dobbs quoted the CFR document that says we wil merge with Mexico and Canada by 2010.
Many were screaming about NAFTA and Clinton in the 90s and now support the same abysmal policies that are destroying this country. Tell me how this is conservative and will improve our economy. I, personaly, would like to maintain the United States of America and its constitution. I refuse to give up on our soverignty and believe we can maintain our nation status by opposing these policies.
I am afraid I also fail to follow your comment on originality. Are you upset that I am well read instead of filling my head with the latest sports trivia or Oprah diatribe, or are you upset that I honestly laid down the facts that you were unable to engage? Do you or do you not stand for NAFTA, GATT, CAFTA, or the FTAA? Do you believe in gun confiscation and Mexican troops on our soil? Do you believe that the Bill of Rights must be dismantled to preserve freedom (Patriot Act)? Why is it that Bush supporters(not conservatives but followers of Trotsky) fail to ever answere these questions? Never once has one answered either yes or no to any? Is it because they are so uneducated or consumed with material persuits to take notice, or do they truly not care about the USA?
This blind, careless following is a cult of personality. In otherwords, idolitry.
Knock it off and work toward a stronger America. Your children will thank you.
Now, enter the debate and defend your position.
Posted by beowulf on Nov 6, 2005 at 5:01 PM Go here: http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/8245212D-39CC-4E6E-80FF-2E1F29F72BC5.htm<
Read the articles listed and try to understand the Iraqi occupation from an Arab perspective. Then ask yourself what is the real neocon agenda.
This isn’t about Saddam Hussein and Iraqi freedoms. This is about control of global oil supplies.
Venezeula is one of the leading sources of U.S. crude imports. Mark my words, if Hugo Chavez makes overtures of shutting out the U.S., we may suddenly learn that he is involved in Narco-terrorism or violating the human rights of Venezuelans. Similar in fashion to how the Bush crony - Manuel Noriega suddenly became public enemy #1 and allegedly a key component of cocaine trafficing into the U.S. Again, he was “our boy in Central America” until he started “bucking” against U.S. control of Panama. Locate and view the documentary - “Panama Deception”
While your at it, review the Iran - Contra Affair documentary.
Too many lies have been told, and too many people have died in seeking to maintain dominance of the world economies.
Posted by shaunb62 on Nov 6, 2005 at 5:01 PM Beowulf -
We had very poor understanding and control of the economy at the time of the Great Depression. Consequently, the government raised taxes in an attempt to raise money for the government and created trade restrictions to help businesses and workers. But all the government accomplished by these actions was to pull money out of the economy, when lack of money was the problem; money in the economy is what creates investment, factories, offices, jobs, and taxes. So after FDR had been in office eight years, unemployment was still 15%.
Free trade allows people and nations to profit from comparative advantage. The USA has a comparative advantage in technology, aerospace, medicine, electronics, financial services, stuff like that. The USA does not have a comparative advantage in textiles, plastic toys, or steel. If we force US businesses to make textiles, plastic toys, and steel, these products will cost more to produce than necessary, and the workers involved in low-tech work will be earning less than they could in high tech jobs. Yes, switching jobs is a pain. Not switching jobs becomes a pain. Take your pick.
There is absloutely no evidence that this country is being destroyed, by free trade or anything else. The USA is the most productive major economy in the world. A work force engaged in high tech jobs contributes to growth; high productivity does wonders for our well being. By any measure, the USA and its citizens are in excellent shape compared to the rest of the world: per cap GDP, per cap income, employment, health, wealth, wealth generation, whatever.
The last threat to our economy was the Bubba Bubble, when Clinton raised taxes in 1993 and then let the dot.com bubble get wa-a-a-ay out of hand, producing the recession in the early 2000s. Fortunately, President Bush and Chairman Greenspan knew what to do, and did it.
The other advantage of free trade is that other countries profit just as we profit. It is a lot better that China is working to satisfy our requirements than pursuing world revolution or something equally silly. The big problem on the horizon is not terrorism, but socialism. Old Europe is collapsing. Fortunately, there are not many countries now that are attracted to the socialist model. People are not stupid. Democracy and free-trade capitalism work, as no other system has ever worked before. We have created almost 100 new democracies in the last 100 years. In another fity years, all countries will be democratic, and economies will continue to improve.
For the record, I own a small arsenal, and there is absolutely no threat to your freedoms. On the contrary, your freedoms increase with your economic well-being.
Arguing conspiracy theory is a dreadful waste of time, and I don’t indulge. Don’t start anymore of that “hijackers are alive” crap,or you will be talking to yourself.
Posted by scorp on Nov 6, 2005 at 11:18 PM First,
My labor should not be be pitted against slave labor in less affluent countries. It makes more sense to have fair trade instead. Everywhere that globalism has touched, massive poverty has developed. We will be no different.
Try walking into a Walmart to find something made in America. To be economicaly viable, we must produce something. Our manufacturing sector is weakened and even the more technical jobs are sent to India. These trade agreements benefit only the wealthy and not the average working man.
As far as the tech bubble collapsing. It was just transfered to the realestate sector. See an article titled boon or bust at www.FCID.gov for more clarification. This house of cards will not be sustainable unless we attract new manufacturing and once again become the industrial powerhouse we were in the past. I do appreciate your response, but will have to disagree with your assessment.
Just for the record, my friend in California opened his child’s textbook to find the second amendment missing from the constitution.
I appoligize for pointing out the AP articles of the found hijackers as well. I do not mean to offend delicate sensibilities. Some people are very thin skinned.
Posted by beowulf on Nov 7, 2005 at 12:00 AM (1 of 1)
George H. W. Bush and military analysts in 1991 believed that going into Baghdad would inflame the entire Middle East Arab countries and decided that it was not worth risking the lives of more American soldiers to continue the war.
AND, because of that, it was the judgment that the American people did not feel those risks justified getting involved with something half way around the world.
And that was a correct assessment. 9/11changed the predicate of those assumptions.
But your comments and others insist on “Bush can do no wrong”
... loyal Bush BootlickersAgain with the conjectures and innuendos and prejudicial stereotypes typical of a mindset consistent with a proclivity towards conspiracy theories.
I never said “Bush can do no wrong”. To go from a statement of support for the strategic foreign policy implemented by the current sitting president to the conclusion that “he can do no wrong” is typical of a black/white mindset that gets confused in the middle.
Had the Democratic Party wised up and not fought Bush in 2004, despite Kucinich’s historical protestations to the contrary, on an issue that he had great strength; had the Democrats not gotten into this reactive “anything Bush does is wrong” mentality; had the Democrats listened to what the American people were really saying about the war, as evidenced by the Bush victory of 2004; had the Democrats put Lieberman on the ticket, I’d have very likely voted Dem.
You totally ignore the biggest error for the fiasco that Iraq has turned out to be.
Again, never said that, except in your dreams.
Ignoring the hyperbolic rhetoric of that statement, if that was the biggest error, so what?
Saddam and his cronies are on trial; the Iraqis are positioning themselves for a THIRD successful election in the space of a couple years; the Sunni insurgency is losing political support as three major Sunni parties have banded together as one and have forsaken boycott politics in favor of participatory politics; in a recent Pew poll, more than 70% of the Iraqi people want the American troops to STAY, at least in the short term.
Yeah, it wasn’t a perfect implementation. The decision to go to war was indeed as much a political decision as a military one. Acting when support was strong, acting before the dangers of putting the military on hold until conditions are perfect (which never is), was not an error but a tactical and operational decision that optimized results, not maximized them.
Only a utopian or an anal retentive waits for the later. Something Clinton was guilty of and resulted in his repeatedly poor performance as commander-in-chief.
Consider the latest Wall Street Journal-NBC poll which states, “For the first time in the poll, Bush’s approval rating has sunk below 40 percent, while the percentage believing the country is heading in the right direction has dipped below 30 percent. In addition, a sizable plurality prefers a Democratic-controlled Congress.”
Both Lincoln and FDR, as war presidents, suffered greatly in popular support during their darkest hours. That is why the Founding Fathers established a representative republic.
Forgive me for not wasting my time getting the quote exactly right, but the reason for a representative republic was to give democracy a chance as the passions of the moment cooled down.
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 7, 2005 at 1:23 AM (2 of 2)
Jay Cline,
You are unable to address the facts and all can be proved with the AP, Reuters, .gov, and .mil. ... and no I will not get over it.I never said your facts were wrong. scorp did. All I said is that you have a conspiratorial mindset and my past experience on this website is that no matter how much time I spend disproving your alleged facts, you’ll dig up more.
I’m not immortal. Time and energy and patience are a premium. Demonstrate a modicum talent in logic and I’ll take you more seriously.
For example, you claim the Bush family made their fortune in the selling of Nazi assets.
Even if true, so friggin’ what? You offer no logical reason why that is even relevant.
As far as getting over it,
???
I can do this all day.
I’ve no doubt. I’ve already argued in other posts that the military conducts training exercises all the time, and they practice all sorts of arcane scenarios. But jumping to the conclusion that the military was ready for is belayed by the point that they weren’t!
Here is another conspiracy theory, using beowulf‘s fact-based methodology.
A) Two of my great-grandparents are from Germany, and a third great-great-grandparent was German from Pennsylvania,
B) Germanic surnames are common from Philadelphia, through Chicago and Milwaukee, on to Seattle through Idaho,
C) Germans caused three European wars from 1850 to 1950,
D) Aryan Nation and other white supremacy groups are inspired by the Nazi Party.OH.MY.GOD.
They’re gonna sweep America clean from north to south! And I am one of them! Just wish somebody told me about it.
That is the quality of your facts.
Following the advice of the hawks above, it is clear that we must simply kill everyone who may choose to do us harm before they get the chance.
GrayArea seems to share beowulf’s affinity for hyperbolic and stereotypical expletives.
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 7, 2005 at 1:24 AM Well Jay Cline, as Ronald Reagan once said to Walter Mondale in one of their debates, “There you go again.” By catapulting the propaganda and using poll numbers that supposedly show Iraqis supporting our presence in that country is exactly the party line that the Republicans keep repeating.
But, the American public clearly doesn’t buy that anymore. As a matter of fact, recent polls now show a deep distrust in Bush & Company and have serious doubts about his entire administration’s probity as can be seen with the criminal-minded Dick Cheney, Lewis Libby, Bill Frist, Tom DeLay and Bush’s Svengali, Karl Rove.
And since you like to cherrypick the polls that suit your claim that Iraqis want to continue Bush’s military occupation of their country here are a couple that I read which are 180 degrees out from yours:
“Poll: Iraqis not in favor of occupation
BASRA, Iraq, Oct. 23 (UPI)—A poll of Iraqis found most think the occupation forces are hurting the country and 45 percent approve of attacks on foreign troops.Harris Poll: Bush at 40 percent positive—A Harris Poll issued Wednesday showed President Bush’s job approval rating at 40 percent—the lowest it’s been during his five-year tenure.
Poll shows U.S. war support down again—U.S. support for the war in Iraq and feelings of national security have reached record lows in a USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll published Tuesday.
Sadr: Resistance in Iraq ‘legitimate’—Radical cleric Moqtada Sadr, who led uprisings against U.S. troops in Iraq, says armed resistance against the occupation is legitimate.
Britain postpones Iraq handover—British military officials reportedly have decided to delay turning over security in southern Iraq to Iraqis until at least next year.
The London Telegraph obtained a copy of the results of the study which showed that in some areas 65 percent support attacks, and less than one percent think the occupation is improving security.The poll, conducted by Iraqi university researchers who were not told the data would be used by Britain’s Defense Ministry, showed stark numbers against the occupation forces, which contradicts the positive message coming from London and Washington.”
You see Jay, we can all play the same game here with the poll numbers. The ones I used have been printed in almost every major publication, newspapers and Internet sites.
But you want Bush to “Stay the course.” Well, that course is the sure road to disaster and the last 2 1/2 years since Bush declared an end to major hostilities proves what a catastrophe it’s been. You all still don’t get it.
Posted by Richard2 on Nov 7, 2005 at 2:02 AM I certainly share your qualified distrust in the polls, but I am not sure if that means you give your unqualified agreement only with polls that support your position.
I prefer elections and democratic participation as a far better measurement of public interest, because that is where they put their money where their mouth is.
In America, Republicans are winning the elections. People like Kucinich just can’t accept that and write revisionist histories like this article, as I explained from the outset.
The Iraqis, again as I have explained, are showing their support for their new-found democracy in election after election.
Someone certainly doesn’t get it.
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 7, 2005 at 2:09 AM Your analogy does not wash. I did not throw out hypotheticals nor do I play connect the dots. Now, let et me explain in an analogy that better explains your logic:
1) A man declares a need to murder his wife
2) He runs drills of the planned attack
3) Wife dies and man profits handsomly
4) Man declares he is innocent. says, but maybe some monkey escaped from the zoo and killed her
5) No monkeys found missing from zoo
6)while I shift through evidence proving man killed wife, Kline is out looking for monkeys because it is foolish to believe a man would kill his wife.Kline, would you like some more koolaid?
Posted by beowulf on Nov 7, 2005 at 7:40 AM SCORPY keeps forgetting that the only reason anybody thought Iraq had WMD’s before the US launched its illegal attack, is because of falsified US evidence.
We remember even if the Scorpy conveniently forgets.
Jay Decline
is as foolish as ever.Here is how much the Iraqi’s enjoy their new found “democracy”.
Oh and notice that 82% of Iraqi’s want the USA out now. Only 1% support the idea of a permanent US presence. These are not your devious little propagandised US press monkeys, these are from Iraqi themselves.
Why don’t you look at what the lovely Iraqi girl who Rabbit adores from afar, says about your ideas about her reality, IDIOT Jay Decline.
You and all your type will rot in hell for your stupid destructive arrogance and River as well as Rabbit will one day chuck scraps from the table of heaven down to you and yours, or not. Probably we’ll shut the curtains so as not to see your suffering. Unlike you we get no joy out of others’ suffering. Warmongering hateful ignorant sacks of hubristic hypocrosy. Step up and take a bow Jay Decline and Scorpy.
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 7, 2005 at 9:13 AM Beowulf
Rabbit can see you have gotten caught between the site’s tow dumbets trolls. Scorpy and Jay Decline are the two dumbest, most willfully ignorant sacks of unfounded ideas you’ll ever meet. <i>By the way JC , Rabbit can see you are imitating some of his own private mannerisms when you think Rabbit is not looking, you like Rabbitisms that much afetr all don’t you. They must have hurt you well for you to think they might work as well for you. Dimwit.
Beowulf, don’t try talking logic or expecting any rational debate with these two, they are merely amusements. Give them a wack or two, if you want to, they are free use but don’t take them too seriously, they are as said the resident house trolls.
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 7, 2005 at 9:21 AM Rabbit posts the following words of Jay’s
I never said your facts were wrong. scorp did. All I said is that you have a conspiratorial mindset and my past experience on this website is that no matter how much time I spend disproving your alleged facts, you’ll dig up more.
I’m not immortal. Time and energy and patience are a premium. Demonstrate a modicum talent in logic and I’ll take you more seriously.
I Rabbit, do solemnly declare that JAY CLINE has NEVEr proven anybody on this site wrong about anything. That is a FACT, it stands, as Rabbit’s claim and it will be taken as read, unless Jay can point to anything, anything in which he has been right and anybody else wrong on this site.
Go ON you pathetic, ignorant little poser, you keep on putting on airs and making pompous claims, when in truth anybody can see you are the lowest common denominator on this site. you even fail to keep in step with the other trolls sometimes you are so dumb. You are a know nothing and empty vessel if ever there was one,m and i am making this as a statement of fact. Now give an example where you proved anybody wrong Jay, go on you ignorant pissant little disease. One time you were right
Take note Beoqulf JC never strays too close to an actual opinion as a rule, he prefers nipping at the periphery as a rule and once cornered he diverts into semantics. Be warned.
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 7, 2005 at 9:37 AM Beowulf
Please excuse the Rabbit’s somewhat untidy postings, they are always from the heart but he is an untidy lazy sort of Rabbit who gets a kick out of his own spelling errors sometimes, and the truth is Rabbit cannot be forged since his eclectic style is natural. Why would anybody forge a Rabbit? Why would anyone spout nonsense which is doomed to total destruction at the hands of knowledgeable and informed people?
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 7, 2005 at 9:46 AM nor do I play connect the dots.
That is the problem. You’re facts are unconnected, uncorrelated, not relevant.
Start with the Bush family fortune and Nazi Germany.
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 7, 2005 at 1:32 PM Thanks for the heads up rabbit. I will avoid the Elmer Fudds out there. Those two do serve a useful purpose though. Anyone who has ever wondered how the German people could so willfully follow a leader in such a cultic fasion or avert their eyes or deny torture camps, we have living proof right before us. I believe they will make a great contextual study of the contemporary “good Germans” just wanting to kill ragheads. I believe that is the current slogan Bush supporters typiaclly spew. For them to pretend to be anything different than vengeful, pro-torture, death glorifying racists is beyond me. That assurtion is easy to prove. Try this…just take out a copy of the Lancet report that shows 100,000 civilian deaths have occured do to our bombing campaigns, and watch them spin it, deny it, and belittle the report and the sanctity of human life. A true humanitarian that appreciates humanity and the gift of life will show some remorse and concern that will lead to questions about many of the methods used to “liberate”
Iraqis. Many Bush supporters do not have the cognitive ability to rationalize that liberation does not have to come at the end of a daisy cutter.
Posted by beowulf on Nov 7, 2005 at 2:45 PM And for you mister Kline, you never once even addressed one of my facts much less disproved it. You might as well attempt to disprove the color of the sky. I have met many like you that avoid reality in order to remain hopped up on your delusions.
I must admit though, your the first one to declare that the more massive the trade deficit is and the more jobs that are outsourced, the better America will be. All I can say is WOW.
Now that blew my mind. I am sure your childen will enjoy their future hocking chinese goods at the local walmart until, of course, they are drafted into another one of your loony wars. What a grand future you are bestowing on them. Live for walmart and die for Haliburton. That would be double plus good (an example of double-speak from George Orwell’s 1984).disclaimer:
I apolgize to anyone that might be offended at the footnote use, but whenever a literary piece is used in the presence of a Bushite, he needs a little aid in understanding the inuendo. Your patience is much appreciated.
Posted by beowulf on Nov 7, 2005 at 3:32 PM How Bush’s grandfather helped Hitler’s rise to power
Rumours of a link between the US first family and the Nazi war machine have circulated for decades. Now the Guardian can reveal how repercussions of events that culminated in action under the Trading with the Enemy Act are still being felt by today’s president
Ben Aris in Berlin and Duncan Campbell in Washington
Saturday September 25, 2004
The GuardianGeorge Bush’s grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany.
The Guardian has obtained confirmation from newly discovered files in the US National Archives that a firm of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism.His business dealings, which continued until his company’s assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act, has led more than 60 years later to a civil action for damages being brought in Germany against the Bush family by two former slave labourers at Auschwitz and to a hum of pre-election controversy.
Posted by beowulf on Nov 7, 2005 at 3:42 PM continued:
———————————& ——————————— 8212;——————————̵ 12;——————The evidence has also prompted one former US Nazi war crimes prosecutor to argue that the late senator’s action should have been grounds for prosecution for giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
The debate over Prescott Bush’s behaviour has been bubbling under the surface for some time. There has been a steady internet chatter about the “Bush/Nazi” connection, much of it inaccurate and unfair. But the new documents, many of which were only declassified last year, show that even after America had entered the war and when there was already significant information about the Nazis’ plans and policies, he worked for and profited from companies closely involved with the very German businesses that financed Hitler’s rise to power. It has also been suggested that the money he made from these dealings helped to establish the Bush family fortune and set up its political dynasty.Remarkably, little of Bush’s dealings with Germany has received public scrutiny, partly because of the secret status of the documentation involving him. But now the multibillion dollar legal action for damages by two Holocaust survivors against the Bush family, and the imminent publication of three books on the subject are threatening to make Prescott Bush’s business history an uncomfortable issue for his grandson, George W, as he seeks re-election.
While there is no suggestion that Prescott Bush was sympathetic to the Nazi cause, the documents reveal that the firm he worked for, Brown Brothers Harriman (BBH), acted as a US base for the German industrialist, Fritz Thyssen, who helped finance Hitler in the 1930s before falling out with him at the end of the decade. The Guardian has seen evidence that shows Bush was the director of the New York-based Union Banking Corporation (UBC) that represented Thyssen’s US interests and he continued to work for the bank after America entered the war.
Posted by beowulf on Nov 7, 2005 at 3:43 PM continued:
Bush was also on the board of at least one of the companies that formed part of a multinational network of front companies to allow Thyssen to move assets around the world.Thyssen owned the largest steel and coal company in Germany and grew rich from Hitler’s efforts to re-arm between the two world wars. One of the pillars in Thyssen’s international corporate web, UBC, worked exclusively for, and was owned by, a Thyssen-controlled bank in the Netherlands. More tantalising are Bush’s links to the Consolidated Silesian Steel Company (CSSC), based in mineral rich Silesia on the German-Polish border. During the war, the company made use of Nazi slave labour from the concentration camps, including Auschwitz. The ownership of CSSC changed hands several times in the 1930s, but documents from the US National Archive declassified last year link Bush to CSSC, although it is not clear if he and UBC were still involved in the company when Thyssen’s American assets were seized in 1942.
Three sets of archives spell out Prescott Bush’s involvement. All three are readily available, thanks to the efficient US archive system and a helpful and dedicated staff at both the Library of Congress in Washington and the National Archives at the University of Maryland.
The first set of files, the Harriman papers in the Library of Congress, show that Prescott Bush was a director and shareholder of a number of companies involved with Thyssen.
The second set of papers, which are in the National Archives, are contained in vesting order number 248 which records the seizure of the company assets. What these files show is that on October 20 1942 the alien property custodian seized the assets of the UBC, of which Prescott Bush was a director. Having gone through the books of the bank, further seizures were made against two affiliates, the Holland-American Trading Corporation and the Seamless Steel Equipment Corporation. By November, the Silesian-American Company, another of Prescott Bush’s ventures, had also been seized.
The third set of documents, also at the National Archives, are contained in the files on IG Farben, who was prosecuted for war crimes.
A report issued by the Office of Alien Property Custodian in 1942 stated of the companies that “since 1939, these (steel and mining) properties have been in possession of and have been operated by the German government and have undoubtedly been of considerable assistance to that country’s war effort”.
Posted by beowulf on Nov 7, 2005 at 3:44 PM continued:
Prescott Bush, a 6ft 4in charmer with a rich singing voice, was the founder of the Bush political dynasty and was once considered a potential presidential candidate himself. Like his son, George, and grandson, George W, he went to Yale where he was, again like his descendants, a member of the secretive and influential Skull and Bones student society. He was an artillery captain in the first world war and married Dorothy Walker, the daughter of George Herbert Walker, in 1921.In 1924, his father-in-law, a well-known St Louis investment banker, helped set him up in business in New York with Averill Harriman, the wealthy son of railroad magnate E H Harriman in New York, who had gone into banking.
One of the first jobs Walker gave Bush was to manage UBC. Bush was a founding member of the bank and the incorporation documents, which list him as one of seven directors, show he owned one share in UBC worth $125.
The bank was set up by Harriman and Bush’s father-in-law to provide a US bank for the Thyssens, Germany’s most powerful industrial family.
August Thyssen, the founder of the dynasty had been a major contributor to Germany’s first world war effort and in the 1920s, he and his sons Fritz and Heinrich established a network of overseas banks and companies so their assets and money could be whisked offshore if threatened again.
By the time Fritz Thyssen inherited the business empire in 1926, Germany’s economic recovery was faltering. After hearing Adolf Hitler speak, Thyssen became mesmerised by the young firebrand. He joined the Nazi party in December 1931 and admits backing Hitler in his autobiography, I Paid Hitler, when the National Socialists were still a radical fringe party. He stepped in several times to bail out the struggling party: in 1928 Thyssen had bought the Barlow Palace on Briennerstrasse, in Munich, which Hitler converted into the Brown House, the headquarters of the Nazi party. The money came from another Thyssen overseas institution, the Bank voor Handel en Scheepvarrt in Rotterdam.
Posted by beowulf on Nov 7, 2005 at 3:46 PM By the late 1930s, Brown Brothers Harriman, which claimed to be the world’s largest private investment bank, and UBC had bought and shipped millions of dollars of gold, fuel, steel, coal and US treasury bonds to Germany, both feeding and financing Hitler’s build-up to war.
Between 1931 and 1933 UBC bought more than $8m worth of gold, of which $3m was shipped abroad. According to documents seen by the Guardian, after UBC was set up it transferred $2m to BBH accounts and between 1924 and 1940 the assets of UBC hovered around $3m, dropping to $1m only on a few occasions.
In 1941, Thyssen fled Germany after falling out with Hitler but he was captured in France and detained for the remainder of the war.
There was nothing illegal in doing business with the Thyssens throughout the 1930s and many of America’s best-known business names invested heavily in the German economic recovery. However, everything changed after Germany invaded Poland in 1939. Even then it could be argued that BBH was within its rights continuing business relations with the Thyssens until the end of 1941 as the US was still technically neutral until the attack on Pearl Harbor. The trouble started on July 30 1942 when the New York Herald-Tribune ran an article entitled “Hitler’s Angel Has $3m in US Bank”. UBC’s huge gold purchases had raised suspicions that the bank was in fact a “secret nest egg” hidden in New York for Thyssen and other Nazi bigwigs. The Alien Property Commission (APC) launched an investigation.
There is no dispute over the fact that the US government seized a string of assets controlled by BBH - including UBC and SAC - in the autumn of 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy act. What is in dispute is if Harriman, Walker and Bush did more than own these companies on paper.
Erwin May, a treasury attache and officer for the department of investigation in the APC, was assigned to look into UBC’s business. The first fact to emerge was that Roland Harriman, Prescott Bush and the other directors didn’t actually own their shares in UBC but merely held them on behalf of Bank voor Handel. Strangely, no one seemed to know who owned the Rotterdam-based bank, including UBC’s president.
Posted by beowulf on Nov 7, 2005 at 3:46 PM May wrote in his report of August 16 1941: “Union Banking Corporation, incorporated August 4 1924, is wholly owned by the Bank voor Handel en Scheepvaart N.V of Rotterdam, the Netherlands. My investigation has produced no evidence as to the ownership of the Dutch bank. Mr Cornelis [sic] Lievense, president of UBC, claims no knowledge as to the ownership of the Bank voor Handel but believes it possible that Baron Heinrich Thyssen, brother of Fritz Thyssen, may own a substantial interest.”
May cleared the bank of holding a golden nest egg for the Nazi leaders but went on to describe a network of companies spreading out from UBC across Europe, America and Canada, and how money from voor Handel travelled to these companies through UBC.
By September May had traced the origins of the non-American board members and found that Dutchman HJ Kouwenhoven - who met with Harriman in 1924 to set up UBC - had several other jobs: in addition to being the managing director of voor Handel he was also the director of the August Thyssen bank in Berlin and a director of Fritz Thyssen’s Union Steel Works, the holding company that controlled Thyssen’s steel and coal mine empire in Germany.
Within a few weeks, Homer Jones, the chief of the APC investigation and research division sent a memo to the executive committee of APC recommending the US government vest UBC and its assets. Jones named the directors of the bank in the memo, including Prescott Bush’s name, and wrote: “Said stock is held by the above named individuals, however, solely as nominees for the Bank voor Handel, Rotterdam, Holland, which is owned by one or more of the Thyssen family, nationals of Germany and Hungary. The 4,000 shares hereinbefore set out are therefore beneficially owned and help for the interests of enemy nationals, and are vestible by the APC,” according to the memo from the National Archives seen by the Guardian
Posted by beowulf on Nov 7, 2005 at 3:48 PM Jones recommended that the assets be liquidated for the benefit of the government, but instead UBC was maintained intact and eventually returned to the American shareholders after the war. Some claim that Bush sold his share in UBC after the war for $1.5m - a huge amount of money at the time - but there is no documentary evidence to support this claim. No further action was ever taken nor was the investigation continued, despite the fact UBC was caught red-handed operating a American shell company for the Thyssen family eight months after America had entered the war and that this was the bank that had partly financed Hitler’s rise to power.
The most tantalising part of the story remains shrouded in mystery: the connection, if any, between Prescott Bush, Thyssen, Consolidated Silesian Steel Company (CSSC) and Auschwitz.
Thyssen’s partner in United Steel Works, which had coal mines and steel plants across the region, was Friedrich Flick, another steel magnate who also owned part of IG Farben, the powerful German chemical company.
Flick’s plants in Poland made heavy use of slave labour from the concentration camps in Poland. According to a New York Times article published in March 18 1934 Flick owned two-thirds of CSSC while “American interests” held the rest.
The US National Archive documents show that BBH’s involvement with CSSC was more than simply holding the shares in the mid-1930s. Bush’s friend and fellow “bonesman” Knight Woolley, another partner at BBH, wrote to Averill Harriman in January 1933 warning of problems with CSSC after the Poles started their drive to nationalise the plant. “The Consolidated Silesian Steel Company situation has become increasingly complicated, and I have accordingly brought in Sullivan and Cromwell, in order to be sure that our interests are protected,” wrote Knight. “After studying the situation Foster Dulles is insisting that their man in Berlin get into the picture and obtain the information which the directors here should have. You will recall that Foster is a director and he is particularly anxious to be certain that there is no liability attaching to the American directors.”
But the ownership of the CSSC between 1939 when the Germans invaded Poland and 1942 when the US government vested UBC and SAC is not clear.
“SAC held coal mines and definitely owned CSSC between 1934 and 1935, but when SAC was vested there was no trace of CSSC. All concrete evidence of its ownership disappears after 1935 and there are only a few traces in 1938 and 1939,” says Eva Schweitzer, the journalist and author whose book, America and the Holocaust, is published next month.
Silesia was quickly made part of the German Reich after the invasion, but while Polish factories were seized by the Nazis, those belonging to the still neutral Americans (and some other nationals) were treated more carefully as Hitler was still hoping to persuade the US to at least sit out the war as a neutral country. Schweitzer says American interests were dealt with on a case-by-case basis. The Nazis bought some out, but not others.
Posted by beowulf on Nov 7, 2005 at 3:51 PM The two Holocaust survivors suing the US government and the Bush family for a total of $40bn in compensation claim both materially benefited from Auschwitz slave labour during the second world war.
Kurt Julius Goldstein, 87, and Peter Gingold, 85, began a class action in America in 2001, but the case was thrown out by Judge Rosemary Collier on the grounds that the government cannot be held liable under the principle of “state sovereignty”.
Jan Lissmann, one of the lawyers for the survivors, said: “President Bush withdrew President Bill Clinton’s signature from the treaty [that founded the court] not only to protect Americans, but also to protect himself and his family.”
Lissmann argues that genocide-related cases are covered by international law, which does hold governments accountable for their actions. He claims the ruling was invalid as no hearing took place.
In their claims, Mr Goldstein and Mr Gingold, honorary chairman of the League of Anti-fascists, suggest the Americans were aware of what was happening at Auschwitz and should have bombed the camp.
The lawyers also filed a motion in The Hague asking for an opinion on whether state sovereignty is a valid reason for refusing to hear their case. A ruling is expected within a month.
The petition to The Hague states: “From April 1944 on, the American Air Force could have destroyed the camp with air raids, as well as the railway bridges and railway lines from Hungary to Auschwitz. The murder of about 400,000 Hungarian Holocaust victims could have been prevented.”
The case is built around a January 22 1944 executive order signed by President Franklin Roosevelt calling on the government to take all measures to rescue the European Jews. The lawyers claim the order was ignored because of pressure brought by a group of big American companies, including BBH, where Prescott Bush was a director.
Lissmann said: “If we have a positive ruling from the court it will cause [president] Bush huge problems and make him personally liable to pay compensation.”
The US government and the Bush family deny all the claims against them.
In addition to Eva Schweitzer’s book, two other books are about to be published that raise the subject of Prescott Bush’s business history. The author of the second book, to be published next year, John Loftus, is a former US attorney who prosecuted Nazi war criminals in the 70s. Now living in St Petersburg, Florida and earning his living as a security commentator for Fox News and ABC radio, Loftus is working on a novel which uses some of the material he has uncovered on Bush. Loftus stressed that what Prescott Bush was involved in was just what many other American and British businessmen were doing at the time.
“You can’t blame Bush for what his grandfather did any more than you can blame Jack Kennedy for what his father did - bought Nazi stocks - but what is important is the cover-up, how it could have gone on so successfully for half a century, and does that have implications for us today?” he said.
“This was the mechanism by which Hitler was funded to come to power, this was the mechanism by which the Third Reich’s defence industry was re-armed, this was the mechanism by which Nazi profits were repatriated back to the American owners, this was the mechanism by which investigations into the financial laundering of the Third Reich were blunted,” said Loftus, who is vice-chairman of the Holocaust Museum in St Petersburg.
Posted by beowulf on Nov 7, 2005 at 3:52 PM The Union Banking Corporation was a holding company for the Nazis, for Fritz Thyssen,” said Loftus. “At various times, the Bush family has tried to spin it, saying they were owned by a Dutch bank and it wasn’t until the Nazis took over Holland that they realised that now the Nazis controlled the apparent company and that is why the Bush supporters claim when the war was over they got their money back. Both the American treasury investigations and the intelligence investigations in Europe completely bely that, it’s absolute horseshit. They always knew who the ultimate beneficiaries were.”
“There is no one left alive who could be prosecuted but they did get away with it,” said Loftus. “As a former federal prosecutor, I would make a case for Prescott Bush, his father-in-law (George Walker) and Averill Harriman [to be prosecuted] for giving aid and comfort to the enemy. They remained on the boards of these companies knowing that they were of financial benefit to the nation of Germany.”
Loftus said Prescott Bush must have been aware of what was happening in Germany at the time. “My take on him was that he was a not terribly successful in-law who did what Herbert Walker told him to. Walker and Harriman were the two evil geniuses, they didn’t care about the Nazis any more than they cared about their investments with the Bolsheviks.”
What is also at issue is how much money Bush made from his involvement. His supporters suggest that he had one token share. Loftus disputes this, citing sources in “the banking and intelligence communities” and suggesting that the Bush family, through George Herbert Walker and Prescott, got $1.5m out of the involvement. There is, however, no paper trail to this sum.
The third person going into print on the subject is John Buchanan, 54, a Miami-based magazine journalist who started examining the files while working on a screenplay. Last year, Buchanan published his findings in the venerable but small-circulation New Hampshire Gazette under the headline “Documents in National Archives Prove George Bush’s Grandfather Traded With the Nazis - Even After Pearl Harbor”. He expands on this in his book to be published next month - Fixing America: Breaking the Stranglehold of Corporate Rule, Big Media and the Religious Right.
In the article, Buchanan, who has worked mainly in the trade and music press with a spell as a muckraking reporter in Miami, claimed that “the essential facts have appeared on the internet and in relatively obscure books but were dismissed by the media and Bush family as undocumented diatribes”.
Buchanan suffers from hypermania, a form of manic depression, and when he found himself rebuffed in his initial efforts to interest the media, he responded with a series of threats against the journalists and media outlets that had spurned him. The threats, contained in e-mails, suggested that he would expose the journalists as “traitors to the truth”.
Unsurprisingly, he soon had difficulty getting his calls returned. Most seriously, he faced aggravated stalking charges in Miami, in connection with a man with whom he had fallen out over the best way to publicise his findings. The charges were dropped last month.
Posted by beowulf on Nov 7, 2005 at 3:55 PM Typical conspiracy tactic: Either say “someone else said it so it must be true, but when pushed, hide the proported evidence in a plethoria of verbage.
Ok, it worked.
Let me know when you learn how to distill and summarize key ideas and to present them.
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 7, 2005 at 4:12 PM I decided not to summarize on this one to avoid an abundance of questions that would cause a lengthy diatribe of bantering back and forth. I found this easier. Chaulk it up to lazyness. In the future, I will summarize my points. I appoligize for the length of the post.
Posted by beowulf on Nov 7, 2005 at 4:47 PM (1 of 2)
Never mind. Here is a summary of the Bush-Nazi connection:
Dubya’s grandfather, Prescott Bush, started out as a banker in 1924 (long before Hitler exploded on the scene) in a bank (UBC) set up by his father-in-law and Averill Harriman, son of a wealthy railroad magnate.
The link to Germany (the Nazi Party wasn’t relevant yet) was through August Thyssen, a German businessman. His son, Fritz inherited the family business in 1926. According to the reference, UBC was set up to provide a US bank for the Thyssen family.
Fritz fell in with the fledging Nazi party (ed. note - as did millions of other Germans and for the same reason. The economy was in shambles, suffering from the devastating effects of Franco-Anglo-Slavic imposed reparations at the conclusion of WWI). Fritz financed and bailed out the party on several occasions until he had a falling out with Hitler in 1941 (ed. note - no explanation is given as to the nature of that falling out. Business? Politics? Conscience?).
As the article states,
There was nothing illegal in doing business with the Thyssens throughout the 1930s and many of America’s best-known business names invested heavily in the German economic recovery.
But,
The trouble started on July 30 1942 when the New York Herald-Tribune ran an article entitled “Hitler’s Angel Has $3m in US Bank”. UBC’s huge gold purchases had raised suspicions that the bank was in fact a “secret nest egg” hidden in New York for Thyssen and other Nazi bigwigs. The Alien Property Commission (APC) launched an investigation.
In the resulting investigation by the APC, the bank was cleared of those charges. It was also noted that the bank was actually controlled by Thyssen family. The article goes on to allege that the bank, and by association the Bush and Harriman families, financed the rise of the Nazi Party and provided a shell bank to give the Thyssen family a way to send their family wealth out of the country.
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 7, 2005 at 5:11 PM (2 of 2)
Ok, so what?
The bank was established in 1924, before the rise of the Nazi Party and the connection with the Thyssen family. If the Thyssen family did control the bank, and for the purpose of sending their wealth offshore, again, so what? The biggest concerns of German businesses was protecting their wealth from the devastation of the reparations through the 1920s and 1930s. Isn’t China doing the same thing with their money in buying US dollars? Didn’t the Japanese invest billions of wealth in American real estate throughout the 1970s and 1980s?
A second charge is made against Bush business interests in coal mines and steel plants in what is now Poland. The charge is that Bush profited from the slave labor from the concentration camps. But here is where the article goes into a little misdirection,
Thyssen’s partner in United Steel Works, which had coal mines and steel plants across the region, was Friedrich Flick, another steel magnate who also owned part of IG Farben, the powerful German chemical company.
Flick’s plants in Poland made heavy use of slave labour from the concentration camps in Poland. According to a New York Times article published in March 18 1934 Flick owned two-thirds of CSSC while “American interests” held the rest.
Ok, in 1934 American interests held one-third interest in Flick’s plants in Poland that made heavy use of slave labour from concentration camps in Poland. Yet, in 1934 Hitler hadn’t even crossed the Rhein or waltzed into Austria. Much less moved into the Sudenten and Czechoslovakia.
The timeline is wrong. Deliberately wrong.
But the ownership of the CSSC between 1939 when the Germans invaded Poland and 1942 when the US government vested UBC and SAC is not clear.
Of course it was. In the mid 1930s, as mentioned in the article, Poland began to nationalize those industries. When the Germans took over, those factories became part of Germany, and were dictated to by the Nazi Party. The article essentially accuses the Bush and Harriman families for being in bed with the Nazis. But how could they not be, with the Germans holding their assets? Did they control the operations of those plants?
The fact that they had sunk money into a legitimate banking investment in the mid 1920s that was subsequently confiscated by the Nazis in no way justifies the charges. Much is said about the money the Bush family got in the selling of those assets, but it was their money to begin with.
So, beowulf’s assertion that the Bush family profited from Nazi excesses is just plain stupid.
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 7, 2005 at 5:11 PM So, even if beowulf’s allegations held water, so what?
What is the relevance from this with regards to the Iraqi War?
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 7, 2005 at 5:12 PM http://www.john-loftus.com/bush_nazi_scandal.asp
The above link is to one of the authors sited in the article that has clarification for some of your questions concerning the Bush’s past.
I believe the misdate of 1934 was supposed to be 1943. The gaurdian’s mistake should not be siezed upon as magic proof that it is not true.
Preschot knew what he was doing.
“Walker also set up a deal to take over the North American operations of the Hamburg-Amerika Line, a cover for I.G. Farben’s Nazi espionage unit in the United States. The shipping line smuggled in German agents, propaganda, and money for bribing American politicians to see things Hitler’s way. The holding company was Walker’s American Shipping & Commerce, which shared the offices at 39 Broadway with Union Banking. In an elaborate corporate paper trail, Harriman’s stock in American Shipping & Commerce was controlled by yet another holding company, the Harriman Fifteen Corporation, run out of Walker’s office. The directors of this company were Averill Harriman, Bert Walker, and Prescott Bush. . .
“The Robber Barons saw it coming. Their lawyers, the Dulles brothers, had a contingency plan. They had established three banks, one in Germany, one in Holland, and one in New York (the Union Banking Corporation, headed by the ever-useful son-in-law Prescott Bush). No matter who won World war II, the corporate stocks would be shifted around to whichever bank was in a neutral country when the war was over.”
In other words, I should have not relied on a mainstream news outlet to handle such a politically charged story. You did well to point out discrepencies, and even better spinning excuses for them, but the above site comes from one of the authors of this dark period in our history that the gaurdian obtained their information. I believe his work refutes your spin and paints you out to be a Nazi sympathizer.
“After WW II, the Dulles brothers’ shell game deceived a gullible and war-weary world. The “neutral” Dutch bank reclaimed their German assetts as “stolen” by the Nazis, and the whole merry fraud continued. Prescott Bush got his Union Bank back from the US Government in 1951, despite its seizure in 1942 as a Nazi front. Prescott Bush and father-in-law Walker were paid two shares worth about $1.5 million in 1951 dollars. It was a petty payoff for a job well done.Nearly 4,000 shares (98% of the Union Bank holdings) were held by Roland Harriman in trust for the Rockefellers. That’s about three billion in 1951 dollars, more than 30 billion dollars in todays money. Most of it was reinvested in post-war Germany where they made even more obscene profits. After all, Germany was just as cash starved after World War II as they were after World War I. It was just another cycle in the Robber Baron’s spreadsheet. Everyone made money off the Holocaust, except of course the Jews and the Allied soldiers. “
So it is not stupid to assert that the Bush’s profited from the Nazi’s nor to highlight its significance today. War profiteering from todays war comes from the same families as the ones then. They litter Haliburton, the Carlyle Group, and Kellog Brown, and Root. Corporate windfalls at the expense of the people who fight them once again. It is all relevant as taken from the title of General Smedley Darlington Butler’s book says…- War is a Racket.
Posted by beowulf on Nov 7, 2005 at 11:40 PM In case you are not familiar with general Butler, I have offered another link to aid you.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/2/27/112936/440
They wanted General Butler to deliver an ultimatum to Roosevelt. Roosevelt would pretend to become sick and incapacitated from his polio, and allow a newly created cabinet officer, a “Secretary of General Affairs,” to run things in his stead. The secretary, of course, would be carrying out the orders of Wall Street. If Roosevelt refused, then General Butler would force him out with an army of 500,000 war veterans from the American Legion. But MacGuire assured Butler the cover story would work:
“You know the American people will swallow that. We have got the newspapers. We will start a campaign that the President’s health is failing. Everyone can tell that by looking at him, and the dumb American people will fall for it in a second…”The businessmen also promised that money was no object: Clark told Butler that he would spend half his $60 million fortune to save the other half.
And what type of government would replace Roosevelt’s New Deal? MacGuire was perfectly candid to Paul French, a reporter friend of General Butler’s:
“We need a fascist government in this country… to save the nation from the communists who want to tear it down and wreck all that we have built in America. The only men who have the patriotism to do it are the soldiers, and Smedley Butler is the ideal leader. He could organize a million men overnight.”
Indeed, it turns out that MacGuire travelled to Italy to study Mussolini’s fascist state, and came away mightily impressed. He wrote glowing reports back to his boss, Robert Clark, suggesting that they implement the same thing.
General Butler turned on and outed every one of them. This has been validated from the Congressional record.
The General revealed the details of the coup attempt in sworn testimony before the “McCormack-Dickstein” Committee (the predecessor of the soon to be infamous “House Un-American Affairs Committee”:
Posted by beowulf on Nov 8, 2005 at 12:04 AM The fact that the date of 1934 is “supposed” to be 1943 casts even greater doubts of credibility on the whole story.
His (Bush’s) business dealings, which continued until his company’s assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act,
Which means that in 1943, no matter how much of those companies were held by American interests, Bush was not one of them.
I look forward to the second set of revisions…
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 8, 2005 at 12:44 AM I am aware of Gen. Butler, as I am of Aaron Burr’s treachery ove one hundred years earlier, but I haven’t yet had a chance to review what you have posted.
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 8, 2005 at 2:25 AM You say Prescott knew what he was doing, and I don’t dispute that, yet everything you have provided indicates no more than running a bank for a German industrialist in a relationship that predates the Nazi Party.
I didn’t know being a German industrialist in the 1920s was, by definition, a crime.
The assets were seized, first by the Poles, then the Nazis.
You show no evidence of malfeasance, only implications of “you should seen it coming in your crystal ball”. What you provide wouldn’t even get a Grand Jury to be called, much less an indictment.
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 8, 2005 at 2:33 AM And I am not, and will not, be found guilty of crimes commited by my father or his father.
Nor would I allow you to be so charged.
If Dubya has dirty hands, then focus on that. Your “evidence” of his grandfathers “crimes” would not be allowed in a court of law that accused Dubya of those crimes.
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 8, 2005 at 2:38 AM Rabbit has pointed out quite clearly that JC has never gooten anything of substance right, on this site. If this were not true he could prove it, but it is true. As for the Bushes you silly Court Jester, what is your spin on Skull and Bones and what about Bomemian Grove? Does child sacrificial ritual and rituals including acts of gross perversion and pledges of allegiance to satanic orders come into relevance or is that just good old fashioned fun where you come from?
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 8, 2005 at 2:38 AM Halliburton has raped the American Economy, on the backs of your soldiers and while Bush held it down for them to do so. He has managed to take a good piece of it himself, but that’s all good for JC the CJ.
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 8, 2005 at 2:40 AM I don’t see a Bush or Walker or a Harriman in the list of conspirators exposed by Butler in the 1930s.
Did I miss something?
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 8, 2005 at 2:41 AM But maybe we should throw John D Rockefeller in jail with Dubya. After all, you implicate his family as well…
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 8, 2005 at 2:43 AM You miss everything of consequence Silly Troll.
......................................^^..................................... ..
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 8, 2005 at 2:44 AM How about the Bush and Bin laden joint accounts and things, is that contemporary enough for the Jay? What about the Saudi, terrorist financiers as well, connections with Bushes in OIL companies? The funds used for 911, have been traced almost to Bush’s backyard.
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 8, 2005 at 2:47 AM As for Jail, Jay, Dubya will be facing the death penalty if he ever is tried for even one of his main crimes.
The anticipation is not that it will come, Rabbit expects all hell to break loose any day, thanks to the bastards who have dimwits like you under a spell. Bushler will get blown away with the wind, before he ever gets to trial for anything, and I think he knows that. These people are living as if there is no tomorrow. They have given up all pretense of hiding their crimes anymore, and the only reason you can’t see it is that you are just too stupid. They couldn’t care less any more if you know, but you are a credit to morons everywhere and still labour on with NO new ideas in your head, for, at least twenty years, from the looks of many of your supposed facts. Same as Scorpy, who is nonetheless a vastly superior troll to Jay.. Scorpy is Rabbit’s favorite troll. JC is Luminous Beauty’s favorite troll. Just shows we all have different tastes.
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 8, 2005 at 2:52 AM The Death of Utopia and Hypocricy -
ITT has a dreadfully slow response time. The French intifada is twelve days on, and - nada. That is surprising, since ITT and the leftist Liberals on this site are so quick to comment and critcize anything associated with the Bush Administration and the War. And there are many close connections between France, and the French intifada, and the current situation in Iraq.
As a member of the Security Council, France had a primary role in the UN sponsored Gulf War, including the diplomacy leading up to the War, the UN declaration of War, the armistice, the sanctions, and the seventeen UN Resolutions enforcing the sanctions. France was fully in agreement with all these actions, but a funny thing happened after the UN issued the seventeenth Iraqi Resolution, Resolution 1441, in 2002, which contained a final warning to Saddam that he had to comply with all the Resolutions. At the UN, deVillepin lied to Colin Powell and reversed France’s position on the carefully crafted UN Resolutions, nullifying thirteen years of difficult and careful work designed to make the UN a force for good in the world. DeVillepin’s actions were an act of betrayal, not so much of Powell but of the ideals on which the UN was founded; Saddam had a long record of aggressive war, genocide, and terrorism, the very things the UN was founded to prevent.
As the situation in Iraq unfolded, a number of amazing developments were revealed. Saddam had massively violated the UN sanctions, and the multi-billion dollar Oil-for-Food scandal was revealed. Besides UN complicty in the scandal, the two major recipients of Saddam’s bribery and graft were French and Russian politicians. The happy French recipient of Saddam’s money included former French Interior Minister Charles Pasqua (12 million barrels); Patrick Maugein, CEO of the oil company Soco International and financial backer of French President Jacques Chirac (25 million barrels); and former French Ambassador to the United Nations Jean-Bernard Merimee (11 million barrels). The bribe and extortion money that went to the politicians and Saddam’s supporters, was, of course, intended for food and medicine for the Iraqi people. At one time the leftist Liberals were trying to the sell the idea that the USA was responsible for the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi babies, but they were never able to justify such a large figure, and the money that was supposed to feed and care for the Iraqis had, in reality, gone to graft and corruption. And I know what Mad Albright said, but she was clueless, besides being a leftist and a Liberal.
And then there were the other connections. John Kerry was the French Candidate for President of the USA in 2004 (sort of like the Manchurian Candidate, but more plausible, at least to Liberals). John Kerry had a life-long commitment to French culture and elitism as a model for behavior, and to the subordination of the USA under the aegis of the United Nations.
There were also the forged Niger uranium documents that Joe Wilson lied about. Rocco Martino, who tried to peddle the forged documents, testeifed that the documents were prepared by French intelligence. And Wilson had a long history of involvement with the French and with Francophone Africa; Valerie Plame, the un-undercover CIA agent, justified her husband’s trip to Niger thusly:
The report states that a CIA official told the Senate committee that Plame “offered up” Wilson’s name for the Niger trip, then on 12 February 2002, sent a memo to a deputy chief in the CIA’s Directorate of Operations saying her husband “has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity.” - Wikipedia
French contacts, indeed.
Posted by scorp on Nov 8, 2005 at 2:58 AM So, in summary, the French participation in Iraq has consisted of a long, intricate intrigue featuring dishonesty, greed, and manipulation, with the willing participation of American Liberals.
And what has France gotten for her investment? Well, first remember that the silly little French socialist economy has been in rough straits for fifteen years, with major unemployment and zero growth. It was not widely known , but 9000 French police cars had been stoned already in 2005, before the intifada started. And now we have the French intifada, now spread to 200 locations in France and also to Denmark. On recent nights up to 1000 vehicles or more have been burned, in addition to all the damage to schools and other facilities.
But that is the least of France’s problems. The European Constiturion was just voted down. The Euro is falling like a rock, and has been for ten months, contrary to what Lagomorph was saying just last week. With the economy already in bad shape, tourism in France will take a bad hit, and tourism accounts for 8-1/2% of the French economy. The French police cannot control the riots, and the French are considering calling out the troops. But the French military is in poor condition and has other commitments, and there were already questions on the loyalty of Muslim troops within the French army.
The Soviet Union was the spiritual home of the leftists and Liberals, both in Europe and the USA, but the Soviet Union had certain drawbacks, including inefficiency, corruption, and tens of millions of dead bodies lying around. Not to mention that the Soviet Union collapsed.
But not to worry. Old Europe, and particularly France, was able to assume the role of spiritual home for the leftists and Liberals, and France had some very attractive qualifications for such a role: anti-American, politically correct, diverse, Green, socialist, elite, cultured, and stupid.
Do not misunderestimate the shock and awe of the transformation that France is now going through. Much of Old Europe, specifically including Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Spain, has been questioning their proper role in the world, as characterized by the recent German election results, and the Muslim problems in the Netherlands. Whither Europe?
After 09/11, America realized it was at war, and took steps to combat the enemy, which was the terrorists, not the Muslims, of course. Many countries joined the Coalition, and many, like France, straddled. Now all of France’s scheming and hypocricy have come to grief. Where to now, France? Surrender, straddle, or fight?
We could probably leave France to stew in her own ignorance and hypocricy, but there may be too much at stake. We certainly don’t want a hostile regime in France, and the French nukes must be secured, whatever happens. It would not take too great an effort to bail out France once more, but the last time we came to Marianne’s rescue, we let her become a founding member of the UN Security Council, and that has been a source of grief, and not a source of peace and stability, as intended.
The UN has, to a large extent, been taken over by anti-democratic forces, and should be replaced with a union of democracies. This would be a good time to restore the founding principles of the UN, get rid of the deadwood, and make a new and more representative organization. The Security Council would then be reorganized around, say, Great Britain, Brazil, India, and Indonesia, with Russia and China offered conditional membership depending on their continued progress toward democracy. The USA should remain outside the reorganized UN, but a close supporter of democratic actions, with or without the UN.
Posted by scorp on Nov 8, 2005 at 3:02 AM A well referenced history of Bush-Saudi connections.
DESPITE CLEAR TIES TO TERROR, BUSH-SAUDI TIES STRENGTHENED BEFORE 9/11: The Bush Administration maintained and strengthened its ties to the Saudi government upon taking office. As the Boston Herald reported, a “revolving U.S.-Saudi money wheel” exists “within President Bush’s own coterie of foreign policy advisers.” First and foremost, the current President’s father “remains a senior adviser to the Carlyle Group” – an investment bank with deep connections to the Saudi royal family, and received $1 million for his Presidential library from the royal family. George W. Bush himself is also linked to the Saudi-backed Carlyle Group: he was a director of a Carlyle subsidiary called Caterair. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice “is a former longtime member of the board of Chevron which did business in the Saudi desert.” And Vice President Cheney’s tenure as CEO of oil giant Halliburton was among his dealings with “firms connected to the Saudis that paid big dividends.” [Source: Boston Herald, 12/11/01]
IMMEDIATELY AFTER 9/11, WHITE HOUSE FLIES BIN LADENS OUT OF AMERICA: In the immediate wake of 9/11, all flights in the United States were grounded. But as the new book “House of Bush, House of Saud” notes, the flight ban had one exception: the Saudi relatives of Osama bin Laden. As Secretary of State Colin Powell acknowledged, members of bin Laden’s family were put on flights that “were coordinated within the U.S. government” and allowed to go back to Saudi Arabia. According to Gerald Posner’s “Why America Slept,” the White House-authorized flights out of the United States also included Saudi Prince Ahmed, who a top Al Qaeda terrorist said “knew beforehand that an attack was scheduled for American soil” on 9/11. The White House’s decision to allow the Saudis to leave came at the same time Vanity Fair notes “Arabs were being rounded up and interrogated” all over the country and Attorney General John Ashcroft was asserting that the government had “a responsibility to use every legal means at our disposal to prevent further terrorist activity by taking people into custody who have violated the law and who may pose a threat to America.” As one law enforcement officer asked, “How could officials bypass such an elemental and routine part of an investigation during an unprecedented national-security catastrophe? At the very least, wouldn’t relatives have been able to provide some information about Osama’s finances, associates, or supporters?” [Source: Salon, 3/11/04; NBC, 9/7/03; Chicago Tribune, 9/19/01]
SAUDI TIES TO TERROR KNOWN LONG BEFORE 9/11: According to U.S. News and World Report, a 1996 CIA report found that a third of the 50 Saudi-backed charities it studied “were tied to terrorist groups.” Similarly, a 1998 report by the National Security Council had identified the Saudi government as “the epicenter” of terrorist financing, becoming “the single greatest force in spreading Islamic fundamentalism” and “funneling hundreds of millions of dollars to jihad groups and al Qaeda cells around the world.” Over the past decade, “al Qaeda and its fellow jihadists collected between $300 million and $500 million, most of it from Saudi charities and private donors” and the very “origins of al Qaeda are intimately bound up with the Saudi charities.” [Source: U.S. News and World Report, 12/15/03]
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 8, 2005 at 3:15 AM JC will ignore anything which is too real, and which is too threatening, he is not a very brave troll, one of the reasons Rabbit despises him. These postings of Rabbits are about contemporary Bush ties to terrorists via money, which is in comparison to Bush money ties to Nazis and JC if you don’t get it, at least rational people will.
Once a bunch of Vicious Nazis always a bunch of Vicious Nazis, and you suck on it’s teat now, as you would have done then. You’d have made a beaut little Stormtrooper Jay. You could have spouted the Fuerers words with complete and convincing conviction, and without a glance at the little book of slogans,. as you did the gruesome work of the motherland. People like you are normally selected to guard POWs. That is because you are so two dimensional and lacking in empathy with those around you, you can be relied upon never to see the prisoners as men like yourself.
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 8, 2005 at 3:18 AM Scorpy has shown once again why he may indeed be something other than a troll and Rabbit has mentioned it before. Shill. Troll is more friendly and is meant to be, because for a shill you are still quite cute. The blatant propaganda, the excellent spin on the selected facts, is quite original everytime. Rabbit is too busy to go into it in detail, though he read it Scorpy, but may do so later.
Rabbit does not think the Froggies are experiencing an intifada it is a class thing and while there is many muslims amongst them, this is not the driving force and frankly Rabbit finds it seems too much like wishful thinking on your part. You so much want to see some Muslims declaring holy war, but the problem has to do with poverty and inequality. Self created population inequities, the same as those currently being created in the USA, I posted a good article above, if you are capable of looking at anything except your own bombast.
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 8, 2005 at 3:28 AM By that I meant a link by the way. To the French problem.
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 8, 2005 at 3:31 AM A union of democracies…where it takes more than the muzzle of a weapon and an unsavory thug to qualify for membership…
That’ll play in Peoria, and it’ll more properly align the world along true fault lines.
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 8, 2005 at 3:40 AM scorp,
do I have your permission to post this to my own blog?
The UN has, to a large extent, been taken over by anti-democratic forces, and should be replaced with a union of democracies. This would be a good time to restore the founding principles of the UN, get rid of the deadwood, and make a new and more representative organization. The Security Council would then be reorganized around, say, Great Britain, Brazil, India, and Indonesia, with Russia and China offered conditional membership depending on their continued progress toward democracy. The USA should remain outside the reorganized UN, but a close supporter of democratic actions, with or without the UN.
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 8, 2005 at 3:43 AM Jay -
Sure. You might want to make it clear that France is the deadwood. I enjoy your stuff.
Posted by scorp on Nov 8, 2005 at 3:53 AM I will mark up the paragraph accordingly.
Thanks!
ref: http://sufrensucatash.blogspot.com/
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 8, 2005 at 3:58 AM Huh…................. a Troll love in….....................How sweet…..
The blind quoting the blind. The morons have impressed themselves, and each other….................................... Chuckle Chuckle….....................
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 8, 2005 at 4:25 AM Scorp, the transformation you refer to is caleed the New World Order. I am well aware of these dealings with the French government and by no means does the USA have the market cornered on corruption. As for the oil for food program, the US was the greatest culprit with US companies like Haliburton taking lion share profits. Lest you forget, you cannot breach a US Navy blockade of 90 ships without a permission slip.
I am not certain what you mean by that Joe Wilson lied. Can you be specific because he was correct in that the Niger documents were proven forgeries and that this information was presented to the president prior to his state of the union address in 2003. The fake documents were brought into the office of special plans by people such as Franklin who just pleaded guilty for spying on Israel.
The UN is and has always been a hostile, corrupt organization that has always sponsored aggression. Many governments, including Italy, France, Britain, and Israel are lying as to their participation in the fake intel leading up to the Iraq war. They knew what they fabricated and the Americans took the bait. What was the key role of American neocons, i.e. Michael Ledeen, in funneling the information contained in the Niger forgeries to Washington? Someone legitimized these fake documents by doing an end run around the CIA and the mainstream intelligence community, and injected a fabrication into the American intelligence stream. Who was it? La Repubblica fingers the Office of Special Plans, and names names, including Ledeen, Harold Rhode, and Larry Franklin, the confessed spy for Israel.
The alternative media has been covering this story since 2003, while Kline and scorp are only now trying to play grownup and profer opinions about global affairs. I think they should just return to the kiddy table and finish their game of go-fish.
Posted by beowulf on Nov 8, 2005 at 4:45 AM Exactly as Beowulf put it. Wilson did not lie, the Administration did. What dif does it make that his wife, had anything to do with him getting the task? She was clearly in an operating capacity to contribute to such decisions, there is no suggestion she or he hid their relationship or that there was anything improper about it. Rabbit has worked in same companies before with his wife and we have interacted on many levels in the workplace, so what? We both did splendid jobs and that was that.
There is nothing improper here. Neo-cons and their stooges like you clowns, forget that the time a relationship is improper is when it involves one of the parties obtaining unfair economic advanatage, like for example the way all the top neo-cons have such strong ties, and shares in companies like Bechtel and Halliburton for example. It should be possible to find many more examples of improper relationships which are indeed serious enough to be of concern. Here you are merely trying to smear the whistle blower, and you scumbags committed an act of treason to do it, now you are trying to justify that. Keep it up. You’ll be able to write all about it from jail cells if justice ever prevails.
The US was indeed the biggest offender in the OIL for FOOD scandal, and Galloway belted you monkeys all over the place about it when you had the hide to try that one on before, and yet the same clowns are trying to re-cycle it all again now. Some bozos never know when the game is up.
You bozos are those bozos.
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 8, 2005 at 5:32 AM From the article.
Grigg exposes America’s impossible debt load. We’ve transformed from the largest creditor nation into the largest borrower in world history. U.S. consumers carry a $2.0 trillion debt with the average credit card balance exceeding $8,000.00. When you pile that onto the $7.9 trillion national debt-a lump the size of a bullfrog throbs in your throat. What happens when foreign investors raise the interest or call in the debts?
At some point, China may peg its Yuan to the more valued Euro dollar-collapsing the U.S. dollar. “That will create hyperinflation-the swiftest way to destroy the middle class,” said Christopher Wood, of Credit Lyonnais Securities Asia.
Grigg continued, “The real objective is to destroy national sovereignty and erect a global governmentthe globalist counterfeit being offered today is a highway to universal serfdom.”
One of the sobering aspects of this book concerns the expose’ of George W. Bush’s personal goal of dissolving America’s borders. He addressed a Hispanic rally in 2001 saying, “We want our Mexican neighbor to do welland that’s why it is so important for us to tear down barriers and walls that might separate Mexico from the United States.” The majority of Congress supports Bush’s objectives by their actions against American citizens.
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 8, 2005 at 6:29 AM More for the Scoop who clownishly described the problems in France as a Jihad.
<blockquote>France’s biggest Muslim fundamentalist organization, the Union for Islamic Organizations of France, issued a fatwa, or religious decree, that forbade all those ``who seek divine grace from taking part in any action that blindly strikes private or public property or can harm others.’’ </blcokquote>
Coming
to a neighborhood near you. Its coming to get you Scoop. The poor and downtrodden are rising up in spontaneous violence as the NWO plans fall into place. You have done your masters proud, Scoop. Cheerleaders of disastrous policies, and leaders up to the first trumpet call.Who are those seven horsemen Rabbit sees on the horizon?
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 8, 2005 at 7:38 AM Blockhead Rabbit. Will re-post it for JC likes likes the boxes so much.
France’s biggest Muslim fundamentalist organization, the Union for Islamic Organizations of France, issued a fatwa, or religious decree, that forbade all those ``who seek divine grace from taking part in any action that blindly strikes private or public property or can harm others.’’
What jihad was Scoop was blathering about? By the way whay problems are there in Denmark, the land of fairytales and ryebread healthy minds and bodies? Rabbit has heard nothing about it, is this another of Scoopy’s dreams…....... from whence he gets all his ideas? This is to be assumed since we have never seen any sourcing for anything, it seems to be his dreams.
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 8, 2005 at 7:45 AM Boing….. Boing.....Rabbit has a little surprise for JC. The things one finds when not looking for them.
After the seizures in late 1942 of five U.S. enterprises he managed on behalf of Nazi industrialist Fritz Thyssen, Prescott Bush, the grandfather of President George W. Bush, failed to divest himself of more than a dozen “enemy national” relationships that continued until as late as 1951, newly-discovered U.S. government documents reveal.
Furthermore, the records show that Bush and his colleagues routinely attempted to conceal their activities from government investigators.
Bush’s partners in the secret web of Thyssen-controlled ventures included former New York Governor W. Averell Harriman and his younger brother, E. Roland Harriman. Their quarter-century of Nazi financial transactions, from 1924-1951, were conducted by the New York private banking firm, Brown Brothers Harriman.
1951
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 8, 2005 at 9:14 AM -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Dennis Kucinich
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1979 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
427 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2005 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
