Lies about Iraq

by j - street seen Mon Sep 27, 2004 15:41 streetseen04 at hotmail dot com

Can this piece be replicated in a student publication.... can you mail me confirmation...
streetseen04@hotmail.com

Again great piece....

by Dorothy Mon Sep 27, 2004 17:03

do what you want mate

by Joe Mon Sep 27, 2004 17:22

It's important to demonstrate that the Democrats are no better than the Republicans. Both put the interests of US imperialism before that of the Iraqi people.

by Michael Hennigan - Finfacts.com Mon Sep 27, 2004 18:03

I doubt if the outcome of Thursday's debate will hinge on the issue of lying. Tenet the Cia Director was telling Bush as well as Democratic Senators that the existance of WMD in Iraq was a slam dunk. As to multiple motives, there is nothing new in that either.

Kerry's vote for war authorisation had much more to do with poisitioning for the Pres Democratic Primaries than WMD. His best bet is to focus on the poor postwar planning. As to winning more allies for the cause, Bush will likely criticise Kerry for disparaging existing allies.

by redjade Mon Sep 27, 2004 18:08

All that you have proven is that Clinton was susceptible to the same CIA/NSA/etc distortions as W Bush - clever but not really the point.

Yes Dem and Repub Admins have been basically the same for all eternity and they generally follow business interests. But this approach to understanding the current situation, i think, is a bit simplistic.

Yes, it about Oil - but its not ALL about oil. I'd say its about power, a small clique that took power by unconstitutional means, enabled by a passive all Repub Senate, House of Representatives and a 5-4 Coup by the Supremes in 2000.

These folks do not even bother with the rhetoric of the norms of Liberal Democracy anymore - they just do as they wish, spend money without Congressional oversight, throw whomever they like into gulags, trash international treaties and agreements willy-nilly and so on.

These NeoCons (or whomever) have crossed the Rubicon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubicon

The Iraq War has to also be seen as a domestic agenda, not just as a war for Oil but a war for raw unquestioned power.

Active Uniformed Military Personel are now delegates on the floor of the Repub Convention
http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=66371#comment85316
http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=66371#comment85868

The Repub Party rents a Pier 57 on the Hudson and the offers it as a Gulag to the NYPD to stuff arrested protesters into
http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=66605

This is seriously sieg heil kinda stuff.

and as we know, the list goes on...

You dont have to convince me not to have much faith in Kerry/Edwards, but note two things:

1) Kerry/Edwards has promised withdrawal from Iraq within his first term
2) Kerry/Edwards has promised no military draft

In politics you play the cards as they are given. We know what 4 more years of Bush will bring.

by redjade Mon Sep 27, 2004 18:37

Voting arrangements in Florida do not meet "basic international requirements" and could undermine the US election, former US President Jimmy Carter says

[....]

He also said: "A fumbling attempt has been made recently to disqualify 22,000 African Americans (likely Democrats), but only 61 Hispanics (likely Republicans), as alleged felons."

Mr Carter said Florida Governor Jeb Bush - brother of the president - had "taken no steps to correct these departures from principles of fair and equal treatment or to prevent them in the future".

"It is unconscionable to perpetuate fraudulent or biased electoral practices in any nation," he added.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3693354.stm

by David C. Mon Sep 27, 2004 19:01

Lying by American politicians has changed dramatically within the past decade for one single reason: the profound ignorance of the American people is now being openly exploited at the ultimate political resource.

The new lies are not intended to be believed by everyone. The new liars don't fear being 'found out'. The new lies are repeated with confidence and no longer incur consequences for the liar. Lying has lost its costs but retains all of its benefits. Lying now works.

The non-existent WMDs in Iraq.
The non-existent links between Al Qaeda and Iraq.
The unspoken colonization by Israel of Palestine.
The overlooked American coup d'etat in 2000
The unacknowledged economic catastrophe of US budget and trade deficits.
The blatantly falsified personal histories of political candidates.
Etc.
Etc.

The United States of American is now the gravest threat to humanity since the German Third Reich. It is an immensely powerful empire that is now controlled and led by sociopaths, without conscience, who manage an ignorant and docile population with increasing ease. The war in Iraq and the economic pillage and the political bullying are just the beginning.

by R. Isible Mon Sep 27, 2004 19:43

QUOTE: All that you have proven is that Clinton was susceptible to the same CIA/NSA/etc distortions as W Bush - clever but not really the point.

It's not just the poor, old innocent Clinton and his administration being tricked by the CIA/NSA. Clinton and his gang of Democratic Leadership Council goons knowingly murdered hundreds of thousands while in power. At the minimum we have Madeleine Albright on record "Yes, we think, we think it was worth it" about the deaths of _far more_ Iraqis than Bush has yet killed. The DLC "liberals" are committed to supporting the same aggressive acquisition and control of raw resources for the US empire as the weirdest of the Bush neo-cons. This is admitted by Chomsky, Zinn and the other "VoteToStopBush" signatories, in fact in Chomsky's analysis the DLC program is actually more aggressive but more subtly presented. The idea that Clinton was "tricked" by the CIA/NSA needs some sort of proof to make it credible when you offset it against the explicit foreign policy goals of his administration mentioned above.

QUOTE: Yes, it about Oil - but its not ALL about oil. I'd say its about power, a small clique that took power by unconstitutional means, enabled by a passive all Repub Senate, House of Representatives and a 5-4 Coup by the Supremes in 2000.

And right now we see another small clique (the DLC) taking power by devoting their energy to subverting democracy by forcing Ralph Nader off the ballot: they're using their money to buy the election, they have used their operatives to take over the Green Party to use as a stalking horse against Nader. It may not be "unconstitutional" but it's certainly contrary to the spirit of democracy. Also Kerry has a proven track record of supporting unconstitutional measures: the Communications Decency Act (written by his buddy Tipper Gore) was struck down by the Supreme Court after he'd helped to vote it in, he voted for the PATRIOT USA Act which at the least challenges some constitutional assumptions, he voted for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (a Clinton/DLC inspired and implemented program). Kerry doesn't give a fig for the constitution and he's proved it nearly as much as Dubya has. When he obtains power I have no doubt he'll be every bit as repellent, but because he doesn't wear the "nasty Republican" mask the liberals won't be bothered to protest him.

QUOTE: These folks do not even bother with the rhetoric of the norms of Liberal Democracy anymore

Sure they do. There's still a congress composed of Democrats and Republicans that vote to authorize illegal wars, of Democrat and Republican judges that solemnly puzzle over whether or not it's illegal to torture citizens or non-citizens, of Democrat and Republican media that bemoan the protestors ..... and on and on.

QUOTE: The Repub Party rents a Pier 57 on the Hudson and the offers it as a Gulag to the NYPD to stuff arrested protesters into
http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=66605

And during the Democratic National Convention in Los Angeles 2000 the Democrat-loving city administration cleared out space from the city and county jails (of which they have plenty because "democrat" administrations have been gung-ho in building the repressive apparatus for decades) and had the Democrat-led police force arrest and assault peaceful demonstrators, hold them without charge for 48 hours, then attempt to drop the charges. Same shit, different party.

QUOTE: This is seriously sieg heil kinda stuff.

As was the Smith Act (1940 enacted by a Democratic president) which made it an offence to utter or write words which encouraged resistance to the draft etc.

The USA has a long history of fascism in no small part because of the wilful persistance of its citizens in supporting the non-democratic two-party system. This particular moment in history is not particularly worse in terms of abuses of law and democracy than any other. The question is whether or not the spin-meisters of the DLC can frighten enough people with the Bush/Hitler lie into voting for their Hindenburg.

QUOTE: 1) Kerry/Edwards has promised withdrawal from Iraq within his first term
2) Kerry/Edwards has promised no military draft

For a warmonger these are certainly positions which are more likely to ensure a continuation of the war. Kerry's position will probably keep the masses quiet and ensure a more succesful (for the US) prosecution of the war.

Kerry has also promised to strengthen the military and continue the "war on terror", specifically in the policy document available on his official website he says:

that he will
- expand the active duty military by 40,000 troops
- double the Special Forces
- use the National Guard for "Homeland Security"
- double the CIA's overseas clandestine personnel
- push for sanctions on Iran

QUOTE: In politics you play the cards as they are given.

Americans don't believe in democracy. If they did they'd vote for someone that represented their beliefs. Instead they try to play poker and ignore the fact that the house always wins.

by Anon Mon Sep 27, 2004 19:55

Sorry, I don't mean to be mean, but wouldn't the introduction of the draft be a good thing in America?

Currently the US employs thousands of mercenaries to do much of their dirty work in Afghanistan and Iraq because they can't make the numbers using their own troops (and body counts seem lower, and some of the mercenaries are big donars to the Rep party...). These guys are almost completely above the law, any law. Even if America agrees to the ICC statute it won't make a bit of difference for the 'coalition of the billing'.

Why should only poor Americans pay for their country's imperial conquests? Why should middle class and wealthy folks only think about their country's interventions in terms of how it will effect the price of oil, or how it will effect America's image? Would they support The Party (it's basically a one party state with two factions) into battle so quickly again if it meant that their young William or Ashley (yep, draft girls too) might die in some faraway place at the age of 19?

by righteous pragmatist Tue Sep 28, 2004 12:08

Volunteers or Lifers who serve their units and their brother Marines and grunts fight better than draftees.
Hardcore professional soldiers who think of nothing but soldiering are the elite around which an Army is created.

Draftees rather as was proven in Vietnam although they fought bravely performed not as well due to rushed training and the limited time spent in combat. Some units were scratched together, with a high turn over of personnel especially officers and nom-coms.

A unit that has trained with eachother and know each other intimately will fight better because when the bullets fly they fight for their brother soldier beside them.

A draftee told that he is fighting for his country however patriotic he may be will most likely soil his trousers and run from a firefight.

by Bocty Tue Sep 28, 2004 12:21

While I would agree with a draft for social reasons, I cannot support it from a military viewpoint.

1) Drafting is a bueracratic nightmare, and ties up valuable resources in selecting draftees and more wastefully still in tracking down those who avoid it.

2) It is ineffecient. An effective solider needs the same level of training. It is wasteful to train a solider who is only going to serve 12-18 months for the same time as one who will serve 3 years. Therefore, do you reduce the trainig given to conscripts?

3) Poor morale. Most conscripts do not want to be there. Most professionals have some motivaiton beyond compulsion.

by Agreeable Tue Sep 28, 2004 12:24

Only psychos make good soldiers. Ordinary draftees would hesitate before killing unarmed civilians. Can't have that sort of weak-kneed attitude in the modern US Army.

by righteous pragmatist Tue Sep 28, 2004 14:17

what the US Army are targeting at this very moment in Fallujah are elements of Al-Qaeda and Sunni militia and other terrorists.
Al-Zaraqawi the Al-Qaeda commander ( soon to be starring in the Bigley decapitation video) is based there and has hosted meetings with other terrorist leaders.
The US have targetted these meeting areas and have been destroying them in "percision raids" ( a laser guided bomb dropped from several thousand feet)
Of course civilians have been killed. That's inevitable.

US army convoys have been under attack in urban areas and when fired on have returned fire at targets percieved to be hostile.
Often they get lucky and kill some of the bad guys but as often they kill innocent civilians in the area who got caught in the crossfire or else were mistakenly targeted.
that is also inevitable.

However the vicious campaigns of suicide bombings against Iraqi civilians by Al-Qaeda and other fanatics has been clearly and deliberately designed to target innocent civilians and create terror.

The US army are trying to defeat these thugs by aggressive patrolling and offensives in areas such as Fallujah and recently in Najaf where they effectively defeated Al-Sadr's militia hardcore.

Instead of wishing defeat for the US and the Iraqi people you should be wishing victory for freedom and democracy.

Kerry wishes ill for the Iraqi people and for his forces he will be commanding if he won the November election.

He has flip flopped enough.
He is unfit for command.

Viva Bush

by Lerner Tue Sep 28, 2004 15:05

"Americans don't believe in democracy"

What, none of them? Well that explains everything. Thanks for the research mate, it makes world affairs a lot easier to understand. And there was me thinking the world was a complicated place.

Must have taken you ages to talk to all those yanks though...

by redjade Tue Sep 28, 2004 17:01

[Democrats and the Kerry/Edwards Campaign] have to appeal somehow to working people, women, minorities, and others, and that makes a difference.

These may not look like huge differences, but they translate into quite big effects for the lives of people. Anyone who says "I don’t care if Bush gets elected" is basically telling poor and working people in the country, "I don’t care if your lives are destroyed. I don’t care whether you are going to have a little money to help your disabled mother. I just don’t care, because from my elevated point of view I don’t see much difference between them." That’s a way of saying, "Pay no attention to me, because I don’t care about you." Apart from its being wrong, it’s a recipe for disaster if you’re hoping to ever develop a popular movement and a political alternative.

- Noam Chomsky

by Rebel Tue Sep 28, 2004 17:22

I never thought I'd find myself agreeing with Chomsky, but that quote is more sensible than about 75% of what's written on the topic on this site.

Saying that both candidates are the same is a luxury that Americans can't afford. Good to see that people realize that.

by Anon Tue Sep 28, 2004 17:43

The "I don't care if your lives are destroyed" part is funny coming from Chomsky, who has documented for years how political, economic and human rights have been undermined by Democrats in the White House at least as much as Republican administrations have done. His "ignore me, I'm ignoring you" might be saying more than he will admit to: He's been getting attention from all sorts of people since 9/11 who had ignored him for years before then. Desparate to appease his audience, he now lampoons people who join the dots of his political commentary over the past 40 years and arrive at the conclusion: Neither faction of the business party can have my vote.

by R. Isible Tue Sep 28, 2004 18:40

QUOTE: These may not look like huge differences, but they translate into quite big effects for the lives of people. Anyone who says "I don’t care if Bush gets elected" is basically telling poor and working people in the country, "I don’t care if your lives are destroyed. I don’t care whether you are going to have a little money to help your disabled mother.

Chomsky and the other signatories of the "VoteToStopBush" petition are remarkably close-mouthed about _exactly_ what domestic, internal "quite big effects" are going to result for "your disabled mother". They appear to completely ignore Kerry's stated goal of reducing corporate taxes (again from the Kerry-Edwards website http://www.johnkerry.com ) and to try and balance the budget (read reduced spending on "your disabled mother"):

- 99 percent of American businesses will get a tax cut under the Kerry-Edwards plan.

- John Kerry will cut the deficit in half during his first four years in office.

In typical flip-flop mode Kerry also promises to "end corporate welfare" and to reduce personal taxes for 98% of the electorate. Notice that there is a delibarate avoidance of specifying whether or not the "2%" (a _population measure_) will be actually paying enough in increased taxes to make up for the reduction in tax-take from the rest. Your Disabled Mother won't be getting a new wheelchair if there isn't the money to pay for it.

As in so many other cases Kerry's stated goals are conflicting. The _Washington Post_ has a fairly good piece (from a right-wing viewpoint) about his unbelievable economic proposals .

" "You have to begin with the premise that the steps you need to take to reduce deficits are almost diametrically opposed to the steps you need to take to win elections," said Leon E. Panetta, Bill Clinton's first budget director. "You can cut spending and raise taxes or you can cut taxes and raise spending."

Bush and Kerry have chosen to do the latter, and would leave in place all or some of the tax reductions enacted early in the Bush administration. "

Usually Chomsky is quoted because he's expressing a complicated or little researched viewpoint, unfortunately there are those that buy into a "personality cult" and ignore critical thinking in favour of being led. Quoting an unconvincing, unbelievable Chomsky pronouncment falls into this mode of behaviour. Until there is more convincing evidence from Chomsky that Kerry is not actually a worse evil than Bush then it's not worth quoting him.

Meanwhile Kerry is merely shitting on the "left" and Chomsky is helping to smear it around.

by righteous pragmatist Tue Sep 28, 2004 18:46

He apparently didn't care that the Vietnam War was a campaign to prevent the march of Communism in South East Asia. American failure in Vietnam which he and other political activists had a hand led directly to the rise of the exodus of Vietnamese boat people and the Cambodian Khmer Rouge. Of course when journalists from the West risked their lives to report the reality of Pol Pot his friend Chomsky firstly denied the existence of the killing fields and then when he could no longer deny it praised it as necessary to purify the workers paradise.
He is the same lunatic who wept when the Berlin Wall fell and fumed in rage at the cheek of the Contras to dare fight for liberty in Nicaragua against the Sandinistas.

Chomsky apparently doesn't care that the campaign in Afghanistan freed millions of people from the tyranny of the Taliban or that the campaign in Iraq toppled the odious rule of Saddam Hussein.

If Chomsky thinks that on 9/11 the chickens came home to roost in some way he was right. For too long Americans have listened to the extreme left of which he is a member and the the extreme right of Pat Buchanan who both preach isolationism and defeatism and as a result let rogue states believe America was a paper tiger.

To paraphrase Osama Bin Laden - Who is the strong horse now?

Viva Bush!

by ZXBarcalow Tue Sep 28, 2004 19:36

Righteous Pragmatist your last comment managed to surpass all your others in sheer stupidity, you should be proud.

“American failure in Vietnam which he and other political activists had a hand led directly to the rise of the exodus of Vietnamese boat people and the Cambodian Khmer Rouge.”

Actually, it was the American bombing of Cambodia, not its “failure in Vietnam” that led to the Khmer Rouge takeover. The Khmer Rouge were a marginal force in Cambodia prior to the bombing and invasion, but after US firepower had devastated much of the countryside and killed countless hundreds of thousands of innocent people, the KR gained huge support from the peasantry which was outraged at the indiscriminate US attacks and their own government’s complicity in the bombing.

Note that this was one of the most savage bombing campaigns in human history, and the fact that you support this kind of violence, while feigning righteous anger over other atrocities just shows what a shallow, pathetic opportunist you are.

“Of course when journalists from the West risked their lives to report the reality of Pol Pot his friend Chomsky firstly denied the existence of the killing fields and then when he could no longer deny it praised it as necessary to purify the workers paradise.”

Here we have the same old tired crap repeated again. Try a new lie, RP, nobody believes this anymore. If you had bothered your ass to read the original text where Chomsky supposedly said this you would see that what Chomsky actually did was recognise that there were huge atrocities being committed, though (correctly) point out that nobody should believe what the likes of the New York Times et al were saying about it. Chomsky was proven right by the way –the NY Times and others were actually exposed as using false evidence such as staged photos to exaggerate the extent of the atrocities.

And before you go accusing me of “denying the existence of the killing fields”, or some other such crap, let me just say that the American press had no need to lie, because there were huge atrocities taking place –over a million people anyway- which Chomsky never denied in the first place.

I challenge you to find ONE quote where Chomsky “praised (the atrocities) as necessary to purify the workers paradise” or “wept when the Berlin Wall fell”. Go on, RP. One quote. One.

“(Chomsky) fumed in rage at the cheek of the Contras to dare fight for liberty in Nicaragua against the Sandinistas.”

The Contras were guilty of the mass murder, rape and kidnapping of thousands of innocent people. And far from “fighting for liberty”, they were made up of mostly former members of the national guard, which was the private SS of the former US-backed dictator, Somoza, and they were hated throughout the country for their atrocities before and after the Sandinista revolution.

Are these your idea of freedom fighters, RP? People who murder pregnant women and babies, and force young boys at gunpoint to fight for them? Is that your idea of “liberty”? If it is, then I can understand why you would consider the brutal invasion and occupation of Iraq, which has killed tens of thousands of people, as “liberation”.

by righteous pragmatist Wed Sep 29, 2004 12:26

The bombing of Cambodia was a necessary to wipe out the Ho Chi Mihn trail a conduit from North Vietnam through the jungles of Laos, Thailand and Cambodia into South Vietnam. This conduit was used by the North Vietnamese to funnel men, weapons and material into South Vietnam in order to bring the war south with out having to go via the DMZ where American firebases and troops stationed their were seriously hampering VC and NVA activity.
The bombing of Cambodia, a supposedly neutral state, was totally justified. NVA and VC forces were widely dispersed and used civilian hamlets as waypoints on the journey to South Vietnam. Vast areas of jungle had therefore to wiped off the map to clear Cambodia of enemy forces.
After the American withdrawl in 1973 the Commies saw their chance. The inefficient and incompetent south Vietnamese government and their brutal repression of their own people which the Americans had counselled them time and time again to cease most notably with the assassination of Diem in 1963 went unabated. The south Vietnamese army were demoralised and betrayed by defeatist American foreign policy and millions were left to the tender mercies of North Vietnamese communists in 1975.
The climate of Communism fueled the rise the Khmer Rouge with the aid of the Soviets and the Chinese. It was their dispicible soulless and evil communist ideology that led to the deaths and extermination of millions of people until Pol Pot fell in 1979.
in 1980 when it was no longer possible to deny the deaths of millions and the hills of human skulls Chomsky persisted with his claim that they were as a result of a failure of the rice crop and anyway the US was to blame.
Chomsky is the grand ayatollah of the extremist liberal left and the odious religiousness he brings to his hatefilled lunatic rantings is quite chilling.
As he was establishing himself as a permanent scourge of American foreign policy, Chomsky occasionally called himself an "anarchist socialist" (which any linguist should have identified as an oxymoron). But aside from genuflections in the direction of Mao’s totalitarian China (which he refers to as a "relatively just" and "livable" society) and Castro’s Cuban gulag (which he regards as more sinned against than sinning) and his equally superficial engagements with Vietnam and Cambodia, he has not been much interested in the theory or practice of other countries, socialist or otherwise. His only subject—David Horowitz is right to call it an "obsession"-- is America and its "grand strategy of world domination." In 1967 Chomsky wrote that America "needed a kind of denazification." The Third Reich has provided him with his central metaphor ever since.
Chomsky cheers on the Islamic terrorists even though should they win his own Jewishness will mean his own intestines on a stick.

by righteous pragmatist Wed Sep 29, 2004 12:32

What do you think the Communists were trying to do in Latin and South America?
In 1961 the Soviet puppet dictator Fidel Castro allowed ICBM's to be positioned in Cuba within striking distance of the Eastern seaboard. If communism had been allowed to flourish Soviet forces with a toehold in Latin and South America the US would have been ring fenced by nuclear missiles from Eastern Europe, Asia and Northern Russia.
Nicaragua is now a free democratic country as are all the countries of South America except for Venezeula ruled by the thuggish Chavez.
Enough said.

by Dorothy Wed Sep 29, 2004 16:52

Why the hell are you talking about Nicaragua you idiots!

by Joe Wed Sep 29, 2004 17:06

H'mm its lucky the British government did not follow LG's logic on Cambodia in the 1970's. And perhaps LG would like to tell us who actually overthrew the Khamer Rouge in the end. One of their neighboors invaded them if I remember correctly in order to do so but which one.

The Chomsky stuff is hilarous in particular the bit about him crying when the Berlin wall fell. Here are some extracts from an article he wrote in 1990 called 'Revolution of '89'
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/19900129.htm

".. recent events in Eastern Europe depart from the norm. As the fragile tyrannies collapse under a popular uprising .."

"The Bolshevik coup eliminated working-class and other popular organizations and imposed harsh state rule. The total destruction of nascent socialist elements has since been interpreted as a victory for socialism. For the West, the purpose was to defame socialism; for the Bolsheviks, to extract what gain they could from the moral force of the hopes they were demolishing. Authentic socialist ideals have been unable to withstand this two-pronged assault."

"With Bolshevism disintegrating, capitalism long abandoned and state capitalist democracy in decline, there are prospects for the revival of libertarian socialist and radical democratic ideals that had languished, including popular control of the workplace and investment decisions, and, correspondingly, the entrenchment of political democracy as constraints imposed by private power are reduced. These and other emerging possibilities are still remote, but are no less exciting than the dramatic events unfolding in Eastern Europe."

by R. Isible Wed Sep 29, 2004 17:21

Makes your whole post unbelievable, and more importantly undiscussable. If you could post the specific page numbers and titles of the Chomsky works in which you claim he "cheers on Islamic extremists" or any other of the multitude of points above then it would be possible to see whether or not you are telling the truth.

However, all the above is a diversion from the central issue of the thread: lies about Iraq.

I don't think even Righteous Pragmatist would deny at this stage that George W. Bush and Tony Blair lied and lied again about the presence of WMDs in Iraq.

I wonder what else they lied about?

by James Wed Sep 29, 2004 18:20

R. Isible speaks about Bush/Blair lies,
I guess nobody else read the article the same way I did - nobody accused Clinton of lying at the time, nobody has accused France and Russia of lying about WMD.
They all believed they were there!
did they all lie?
I believe the article suggests critizing the actions Blair/Bush choose to take.

Nobody anti-war ever mentions the weapons programs? Why not - no interest.

by R. Isible Wed Sep 29, 2004 19:20

There were at least two different teams of weapons inspectors and it is likely that Hussein's huge amounts of US-supplied nerve-gas were used or destroyed in order to give in to US pressure.

There is little doubt that Hussein had WMDs in the past, the question is whether or not GWBs statement that he had them on the eve of the US invasion was true.

by Noel Wed Sep 29, 2004 19:28

Last night Met Eireann informed the Irish public that today would be dry with low lying cloud.

There were light showers at least twice today.

Met Eireann lied to us!
Who knew?

by R. Isible Thu Sep 30, 2004 19:11

Last night Met Eireann didn't claim that they knew for a fact that there would be showers. Everyone admits that a weather forecast is a matter of probability and uncertainty and they certainly wouldn't claim that it was a good reason for murdering thousands of people. Or would they?

by Noel Thu Sep 30, 2004 19:24

If President Bush and Prime Minister Blair lied about WMDs then all the following are liars:

"[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." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained 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 capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. 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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"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." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"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." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. 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. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"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 mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. 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." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"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. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

by R. Isible Thu Sep 30, 2004 19:34

The Democratic Party have just as disgusting a history of lying to the American and world public as the Republicans do. They bear just as much responsibility for the war and the abuse of the Constitution of the United States of America as their brothers and sisters in the Republican Party.

Two big, fat sets of liars, cheats and conmen and conwomen.

by Noel Thu Sep 30, 2004 19:49

And the French...
And the Russians...

They're liars too.

And the dead Kurds.
And the dead Iranians.

No WMDs around these parts.
No Sir, no way.

Nothing to see here.

by R. Isible Thu Sep 30, 2004 19:57

You just can't see them, the Weapon's Inspectors that combed the country twice just couldn't see them, the US Army inspection teams just couldn't find them? Why? Because they're right there! Look! Right in front of you Noel! They're _special_ , invisible weapons. So we must invade.

Must invade Syria. Must invade Iran. Must save world from weapons. Big bad scary weapons. Must kill to protect life.

Meanwhile the US continues to hold nuclear weapons (as do those other honest brokers the Russians, French, British, Chinese), the US continues to cause actual murder of hundreds of thousands. So we must continue the War on Poor People.

It's all a big conspiracy Noel: a conspiracy which requires your willing participation. Can't see the conspiracy but can see the weapons? Excellent, our work is done, the robot is ready to leave the factory. Make sure he's equipped with the optional latte and a small SUV.

by Noel Thu Sep 30, 2004 20:17

New WMDs now come in double elephant size!!

a) Is it possible that WMDs could be small and easily concealed?

b) Is it possible that WMDs could be very mobile?

c) Is it possible that WMDs could have been transported to Syria or Iran prior to the war?

If your answer to the above questions is No, No and No please join the R Isible wing of the I'm Cleverer Than Everyone Else Party

by Slarti Thu Sep 30, 2004 20:26

"Is it possible that WMDs could have been transported to Syria or Iran prior to the war?"

Because Sadam and the Iranian Government were such good friends you mean?

by Nordie Thu Sep 30, 2004 21:53

a) is possible that if there were WMD's then Saddam would have give them up to avoid certain invasion and therefore being overthrown?

b) failing that is it certain that if there were WMD's then Saddam would have used them when his country was invaded. Otherwise - why 'ave 'em at all? Eh? Eh?

c) failing Saddam using them is it not just a tiny bit possible that if there were WMD's then they would have been used against the American's by at least one of the Iraqi insurgant groups by now?*

Please note - small amount of sarin which was found on an exploded shell after insugant attack on American forces and which reportedly made two US Marine's feel 'a little faint' does not count as excuse for starting war, as weapons experts have found it was unknownly stored in arms bunker from eighties and was most likely one of a kind and not evidence of massive chemical weapon stockpiles which threaten free world etc.

by Noel Thu Sep 30, 2004 22:00

Unfortunately we can't ask the thousands of dead Kurds if they felt a 'little faint' after Saddam's invisible non-existent dust blew into town.

by Nordie Thu Sep 30, 2004 22:32

Ah. That would be the attack in the eighties against the Kurds (I'm not gonna bother pointing out which of your heros was selling ole Saddam the chemical weapons at that time). Now, I'll repeat again for you - the eighties. You know, that decade before the first Gulf War. You know the first Gulf War? The one that ended with Hussein having to destroy his chemical weapons? So, we're not talking about weapons he had in the eighties, but rather WMD's he had after that. Most notably in the noughties and the one's which a war fought over (well, thats what they said) and the very ones that didn't exist.

by ZXBarcalow Tue Oct 05, 2004 21:13

Your silly Rambo-esque take on history brought a smile to my face, RP. Thanks. But I have only one thing to say to you now, at least until I can find the stamina to correct the six or seven million mistakes in your last post:

this is all I have to say... I wrote this, RP:

"I challenge you to find ONE quote where Chomsky 'praised (the atrocities) as necessary to purify the workers paradise' or 'wept when the Berlin Wall fell'. Go on, RP. One quote. One."


And you couldn't. End of story. This proves what we already knew, that you are (to quote myself) a "shallow, pathetic opportunist".

HAHAHAHAHAHA etc etc

by kintama Wed Oct 06, 2004 00:03

careful with the maniacal laughter ZXBarcalow or you may be mistaken for a friend of RP

oops again Noel, Donald Rumsfeld does seem to have demolished your carefully thought out justification for the type of surgical strikes those 5 year followers of terror in Fallujah so richly deserved. no wmd, no links to old Osama, looks like we are back to justifying occupation on the grounds that Saddam is gone. only problem is I seem to recall maniacal outrage from Donald, prior to his launch of terror, when it was suggested that when no WMDs turned up and it became clear that Osama and Saddam were not mates it could all be justified because Saddam is gone.

things are bad and you won't even have the comfort in future of knowing how many of the Iraqi curs have met their death at the hands of
the liberators

by me Wed Oct 06, 2004 08:31

And they have the support of most americans and there's nothing no one can do about it, they don't lie to the american people, the americans know that the gov is destroying the world with their politics and they approve it, they told me (democrats told me) that they don't care, I said most of americans even the democrats, as long as they can keep their fancy cars and lifestyle... They told me they even wait for Fidel to die so they can build a new spa in Cuba because they are tired of the Bahamas...

by redjade Wed Oct 06, 2004 14:57

To: mike@michaelmoore.com
Sent: Monday, July 12, 2003 4:57 PM
Subject: Iraqi freedom veteran supports you
Dear Mr Moore,
I went to Iraq with thoughts of killing people who I thought were horrible. I was like, "Fuck Iraq, fuck these people, I hope we kill thousands." I believed my president. He was taking care of business and wasn't going to let al Qaeda push us around. I was with the 3rd Squadron, 7th Cavalry, 3rd Infantry division out of Fort Stewart, Georgia. My unit was one of the first to Baghdad. I was so scared. Didn't know what to think. Seeing dead bodies for the first time. People blown in half. Little kids with no legs. It was overwhelming, the sights, sounds, fear. I was over there from Jan'03 to Aug'03. I hated every minute. It was a daily battle to keep my spirits up. I hate the army and my job. I am supposed to get out next February but will now be unable to because the asshole in the White House decided that now would be a great time to put a stop-loss in effect for the army. So I get to do a second tour in Iraq and be away from those I love again because some guy has the audacity to put others' lives on the line for his personal war. I thought we were the good guys.

by Nordie Sat Oct 09, 2004 00:34

Och Noel mate, what happened? With the WMD's I mean. Cuz, like, you were sorta implying that S.H had 'em and some learned gentlemen this week have said quite the opposite so I was wondering whom should I believe. Well?

by kintama Sun Oct 10, 2004 02:08

noel must be confused a bit like Donald R. one minute definite proof of WMD next minute no proof and even worse no proof Saddam and Osama were getting it together.
what is strange is that Noel never seems to post when Donald is live on TV, has anyone ever seen Noel and Donald together?

by Noel Sun Oct 10, 2004 13:09

Gentlemen,

I am flattered by the comparisons with the majestical Mr Rumsfeld. Unfortunately, I am not he, merely a fan of his.

Boy, when he says he's gonna kill the baddies he goes and kills the baddies.

And without passing the global test with the UN and France.

He's one bad m***erf***er!

by kintama Sun Oct 10, 2004 13:53

you are correct that he is one bad mf you just forgot to add that he is also a mad child killer. he clearly is in good company on his visit to the restive province. the evidence of his good works will no doubt be evidenced by the hearty greetings received when he goes out to meet the liberated. on second thoughts he might just hide away like old Osama

by toneore Wed Oct 13, 2004 10:12 toneore at eircom dot net

Dorothy, you must be in the land of Oz. Speaking of child-killers, here's the latest from Iraq:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3738368.stm

Bush and Blair were right to go in, whatever the pretext. Let's hope we see videos of Saddam at the end of a rope on Al-Jazeerah soon.

by Nordie Wed Oct 13, 2004 19:21

Na, Tone, I think it's only in the land of Oz that Donald Rumsfeld isn't a child killer.

by kintama Wed Oct 13, 2004 23:47

bit disappointing old 'kill the children' did'nt take time to meet the masses on his visit to Anbar province . he could have popped into a wedding where his witty repartee would have had them in bits.
mind you he would have to do this during daylight given that the superpower occupiers have'nt succeeded in restoring the electricity system( which Saddam managed to maintain even with sanctions) mind you if losing electricity supplies is good even for those folks in California it sure is good enough for the Iraqi curs.

by Noel Thu Oct 14, 2004 08:46

This place is going to self combust when Big Don's boss wins on November 2.

It ain't gonna be purty round these parts.

by kintama Thu Oct 14, 2004 20:04

the act of self combustion may at least bring some light to an area starved of electricity despite its 'liberation' by the nation which controls and consumes the bulk of the worlds resources.
the re -election of George 'I pray for wisdom' Bush (a call clearly not answered) may not be as certain as you believe . despite the fact that video of his face to face with President Kerry showed a feed (evidenced by a bulge in the back of his jacket) from advisors, he appeared to lack the intellectual capacity to turn their advice into actual words. indeed his entreaty to 'let me finish' when he had' nt even been asked a question raises the possibility that he really is hearing voices

by Tim Fri Oct 15, 2004 11:17

The power of the Holy Spirit brought him into office and will remain with him as long as continues to do the will of Our Lord.
This is the end time and all things are being fulfilled. Today Satan (Bin Laden) has returned and he is going through out all the earth from Gog( Iraq) to Magog( Iran) and his army is about to surround the great city( Washington DC) but fire will come from heaven and burn up his army.
Praise to OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST!

by kintama Fri Oct 15, 2004 13:46

oh dear the madness seems to have begun

by believer Sun Oct 17, 2004 01:02

the interpretation of the great city as DC is curious surely this should be Jeddah, Mecca or Medina