Iraq War

[gremlin]

Re: Re: Muslims, Bernard Lewis, and the press

Originally posted by CaptRenault
So in sum, Lewis rightly says the problem is "lack of freedom." His prescription in a couple words: "more freedom"

It is conceievable that you could use Lewis' analysis to support going to war or to not support not going to war. Lewis himself is on the record supporting the war, because he feels that Saddam's tyranny could not and would not be overthrown by the Iraqi people. So it is a first step on the road to freedom. I agree.

Trying to pit Lewis and Said against one another could get long and involved...they temsleves had horrible personal disputes that go beyond their scholarship. I just wanted to make the point that while Lewis as a scholar of Islam makes conclusions that support the current powers in Washington, his is not the most authoritative nor sole voice on the matter. People should read critiques and counter-critiques then decide for themselves.

But on this point of freedom as the solution is simply utopian and too simplistic for a region that Lewis himself acknowledges is the product of complex historical, political, and economic factors.

[BTW, it is certainly not a sound reason to invade Iraq based on the guess that the Iraqi people would never overthrow Saddam. Many in the 1970s believed the same about the Shah of Iran.]

More to the point: how do you define freedom? Is freedom the lack of obstacles to action? Or is freedom the capacity to be free? Two totally different conceptions that require different means to realize. What is ending Baath party rule suppose to do in Iraq? Freedom to do what? Have a civil war might be one option. Divide itself up into more radical states? Become a religious dictatorship? All of these outcomes are, at the moment, more likely than democracy in any form. Again, the question is not whether or not the West should be doing something about the region's problems, the question is whether invading and occupying Iraq is the best means toward the end. If the end is really democracy then the ship is headed in the wrong direction. And guess who will be blamed? (right or wrong)

BTW, since we are citing experts and information on all this...how about analysis from scholars who really know Iraq, have lived in the region, and speak the language (Lewis really only qualifies in one of those catagories). I submit two:

http://www.juancole.com/
http://abuaardvark.typepad.com/

 

[gremlin]

Re: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict serves Arab tyrants

Originally posted by CaptRenault
The argument that the Israel-Palestinian conflict must be solved first before anything will change in the Middle East is an old argument and a favorite one of despotic Arab regimes and certain of their supporters. As Bernard Lewis argues, it is precisely those regimes who fear a resolution of this conflict:

----------------
I feel I am having an exchange with Lewis quotes here

Well, just because it is an old argument does not mean it is less valid. Have things in the region gotten better during Israel's occupation and especially over the last two years? We were told by the adminstration that ending Baath rule in Iraq would bring peace to Israelis and Palestinians and end suicide bombing (i.e. the saddam paid the bombers argument). That is not quite working out well, is it?

The idea that there are other Muslim and intra-Muslim conflicts out there that deserve attention is quite correct. But that is not quite the issue from the international perspective, and nor does simply saying "well focus on those crises" gives us a way to solve this specific conflict. True, press coverage of Israel is easy in the Arab World, but it is incorrect to assume Arabs only have state media to hear. What countries do you (or Lewis!) mean speficially?

Spend any time reading the European, Latin, or Asian press and gauging public opinion there and one will find that they too suffer from the same abnormal focus on the Israel-Palestine issue.

Why? Against Lewis's reasons: I submit because this *conflict* and its history is far different than the others listed. In none of those listed has a US funded regime occupied and annexed land that was not its own. In none of those cases do occupying government officials claim relgious sanction to take the land. In none of those cases, does the regime fund and encourage illegal land grabs, i.e. settlers. In none of those cases, does the regime in question claim the mantle of liberal democracy yet overtly ignore liberal international law on the issue. And finally, in none of those cases is one of Islam's holiest sites involved in the conflict. On this last point, I, as an atheist, don't see the value, even though I find Jerusalem a wonderful city. But the point is not what we think or even how the Israeli goverment may try to justify some of the above, but rather why the Muslim world and much of the rest sees the conflict as a top priority to solve. To pretend the concern is artifical is wrong. Besides, according to Lewis (boy, why can't he come to our forum) solving the conflict would be an excellent way to undercut support for despotic regimes in the region.

And one last point again on the freedom thing. So take out Arafat and give the Palestinians the "freedom" to do what they may (recall the first definition of freedom). Who do you think might then speak for the Palestinian people? Hint: begins with an H and ends with S.

Or prolly we could get Bernard Lewis since he understands them so well

 

[willyapd]

Thank you stripper lover for that website here is some interesting things I found that do support invading Iraq in Kay's testimony.

"We have to remember that this view of Iraq (prewar assessment of WMD capabilities) was held during the Clinton administration and did not change in the Bush administration. It is not a political got-you issue. Often estimates are different than reality. The important thing is when they differ to understand why," end quote.
.
KAY: Senator Warner, I think the world is far safer with the disappearance and the removal of Saddam Hussein. I have said I actually think this may be one of those cases where it was even more dangerous than we thought.
I think when we have the complete record you're going to discover that after 1998 it became a regime that was totally corrupt. Individuals were out for their own protection. And in a world where we know others are seeking WMD, the likelihood at some point in the future of a seller and a buyer meeting up would have made that a far more dangerous country than even we anticipated with what may turn out not to be a fully accurate estimate.




MCCAIN: And he realized and had ambitions to develop and use weapons of mass destruction. Let me begin by saying, we were almost all wrong, and I certainly include myself here.
I would also point out that many governments that chose not to support this war -- certainly, the French president, Chirac, as I recall in April of last year, referred to Iraq's possession of WMD. The German certainly -- the intelligence service believed that there were WMD.


MCCAIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Dr. Kay, for your service to our country for many years. We're very proud to have people like you who are willing to serve the country.
Dr. Kay, you find yourself today in a very highly charged political environment. And you are by nature a scientist, and not one who's familiar with these kinds of passions around an election year. And I think it's important to establish your belief and that of the overwhelming body of intelligence and the intelligence community, both here, overseas and in the Clinton administration, the following facts.
Saddam Hussein developed and used weapons of mass destruction; true?
KAY: Absolutely.
MCCAIN: He used them against the Iranians and the Kurds; just yes or no.
KAY: Oh, yes.
MCCAIN: OK.
And U.N. inspectors found enormous quantities of banned chemical and biological weapons in Iraq in the '90s.
KAY: Yes, sir.
MCCAIN: We know that Saddam Hussein had once a very active nuclear program.
KAY: Yes.

KAY: Clearly.
MCCAIN: So the point is, if he were in power today, there is no doubt that he would harbor ambitions for the development and use of weapons of mass destruction. Is there any doubt in your mind?
KAY: There's absolutely no doubt. And I think I've said that, Senator.
MCCAIN: Good. But it's important to emphasize this point when we look at what has obviously been an intelligence failure.
KAY: I agree.

MCCAIN: But you agree with the fundamental principle here that what we did was justified and enhance the security of the United States and the world by removing Saddam Hussein from power?
KAY: Absolutely.

KAY: Senator Reed, I think it's often easy to forget that in the case of Saddam, here's an individual who had invaded two neighboring countries, used chemical weapons against one of those, used them against his own neighbors and who, by U.N. testimony, had cheated and lied for a decade

 

[willyapd]

StripperLover

Dr. Kay is a scientist, which headed the hunt for WMDS for the UN and the US. He has access to Intelligence reports from the US, UN, and other countries. He is an expert in the field. His opinion was that Iraq did possess WMDS. and was capable of developing them, buying them ect. Most if not All intelligence agencies believed that Saddam had these weapons including countries oppose the war like France, Germany, and Russia. The US had probable cause to go in. Dr. Kay is an expert and his opinions and do matter other wise he would not testify before the SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE.

other things that Kay said

In my judgment, based on the work that has been done to this point of the Iraq Survey Group, and in fact, that I reported to you in October, Iraq was in clear violation of the terms of Resolution 1441. Resolution 1441 required that Iraq report all of its activities: one last chance to come clean about what it had.
We have discovered hundreds of cases, based on both documents, physical evidence and the testimony of Iraqis, of activities that were prohibited under the initial U.N. Resolution 687 and that should have been reported under 1441, with Iraqi testimony that not only did they not tell the U.N. about this, they were instructed not to do it and they hid material.

I think at the end of the work of the ISG there's still going to be an unresolvable ambiguity about what happened.

"We have to remember that this view of Iraq (prewar assessment of WMD capabilities) was held during the CLINTON administration and did not change in the Bush administration. It is not a political got-you issue. Often estimates are different than reality. The important thing is when they differ to understand why,"



Nobody knows if we will everfind WMDS or if they were moved before the ground war began to other countries. there are a lot of facts the we may never know!

 

[willyapd]

originally poasted by SL

The jist of his report to the Senate Armed Services Commitee was to state his scientific findings to date and the conclusions therein & the bottom line as he stated was;

Now, I want to pick up on your comment that we were all wrong. Let's stop to think about that. We agreed, you and I -- we've had extensive discussions -- that the work of the ISG has got to continue; correct?

KAY: Absolutely.

WARNER: That given the size of Iraq, California, the size of Baghdad, Los Angeles, we could discover some facts that would confirm the conclusions that were reached by the intelligence community -- not only in this country, but in other nations -- in the future. Am I not correct in that assumption?

KAY: I certainly think that's a theoretical possibility. Yes, Senator Warner

KAY: Senator Warner, I think the world is far safer with the disappearance and the removal of Saddam Hussein. I have said I actually think this may be one of those cases where it was even more dangerous than we thought.

yeah SL he was wrong! it was more dangerous than he thought

 

[LL123]

Very interesting!!
Those who -before going to the war- claimed that Saddam had massive WMD and even showed some of their funny "evidence" to the world in UN, now their only "evidence" is interpreting some of the sentencecs of the head of inspectors that THEY appointed for this job!!!

 

[Doc Holliday]

Poll: Majority now doubt justification for war

Most Think Truth Was Stretched to Justify Iraq War

By Richard Morin and Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, February 13, 2004

A majority of Americans believe President Bush either lied or deliberately exaggerated evidence that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction in order to justify war, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

The survey results, which also show declining support for the war in Iraq and for Bush's leadership in general, indicate the public is increasingly questioning the president's truthfulness -- a concern for Bush's political advisers as his reelection bid gets underway.

Barely half -- 52 percent -- now believe Bush is "honest and trustworthy," down 7 percentage points since late October and his worst showing since the question was first asked, in March 1999. At his best, in the summer of 2002, Bush was viewed as honest by 71 percent. The survey found that nearly seven in 10 think Bush "honestly believed" Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Even so, 54 percent thought Bush exaggerated or lied about prewar intelligence.

Honesty and credibility have been central to Bush's appeal since the 2000 campaign, when he benefited from disgust over President Bill Clinton's lies about the Monica S. Lewinsky affair and when Bush's campaign accused then-Vice President Al Gore of "saying one thing and doing another." But a number of factors, including the failure to find unconventional weapons in Iraq and the administration's underestimating of its Medicare prescription drug plan's costs, appear to have undermined perceptions of his credibility.

Bush's possible Democratic opponent, Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), has begun to talk about a "credibility gap." Even some Bush allies say they have been misled about Iraq's weapons, and the current Time magazine cover story asks: "Believe him or not -- does Bush have a credibility gap?"

Questions about Bush's use of prewar intelligence, in addition to feeding doubts about his honesty, have sent his performance rating plummeting. Fifty percent of Americans approve of the job he is doing, the lowest level of his presidency in Post-ABC polling and down 8 percentage points from January. The survey found that, for the first time since the war ended, less than half of Americans -- 48 percent -- believe the war was worth fighting, down 8 points from last month. Fifty percent said the war was not worth it.

These doubts have affected Bush's reelection prospects. In a head-to-head matchup, Kerry beat Bush, 52 percent to 43, percent among registered voters. Bush had more passionate support -- 83 percent of his backers said their support was strong, while 59 percent of Kerry supporters said so -- and retains an advantage over Kerry in dealing with Iraq and the war on terrorism. But the Democrat was seen as better able to handle the economy and jobs, education, and health care -- all top issues with voters this year.

The survey found a steep drop in public perceptions of Bush as a president and as an individual. In a sign that Bush has been set back by recent controversies over Iraqi weapons, his National Guard record and the federal budget, the number of Americans viewing him as a "strong leader" has slipped to 61 percent, down 6 points from December and the lowest level since the 2001 terrorist attacks.

Bush's rating on handling the economy stood at 44 percent, down 7 percentage points, with nearly half of the public saying they are worse off now than they were when Bush became president three years ago. Six in 10 disapprove of the job Bush is doing creating jobs. On education, 47 percent said they approve of the job Bush is doing, down 8 points from January. And his rating on health care has also fallen.

But the president's declining ratings related to Iraq were the most striking. Approval of his handling of the situation there has fallen to 47 percent, down 8 percentage points in the past three weeks. About half of Americans -- 51 percent -- said they would prefer a report evaluating the accuracy and use of prewar intelligence before the election, while 35 percent favor what Bush has ordered: a broader study of the overall accuracy of U.S. intelligence-gathering operations that will report its findings after the election.

While 21 percent said they believe that Bush lied about the threat posed by Iraq, a larger number -- 31 percent -- thought he exaggerated but did not lie. Indeed, six in 10 Americans believed, as Bush did, that Iraq had such weapons.

Three in four Democrats said Bush either lied or exaggerated about what was known about Iraq's weapons, while an equally large majority of Republicans said the president did neither. Slightly more than half of all independents believed Bush had misled the public about Iraq's weapons cache.

"I think he was believing what he wanted to believe," said one respondent, Ron Perholtz, an accountant from Jupiter, Fla. "I can't say he's dishonest. He heard what he wanted to hear. He's manipulatable by [Vice President] Cheney and others."

Many respondents expressed regrets about the Iraq war. For example, Mike Richcreek, 52, of Warner Robbins, Ga., said he believes Bush neither exaggerated nor lied. "He went by what the intelligence given to him showed," Richcreek said. But, at the same time, Richcreek said he has begun to doubt the merits of the war.

"I'm not sure now we should have gone to war in the first place," he said. "You think of all of our young kids getting killed. That's a problem. I'm glad I didn't have to make the decision."

 

[Red Paul]

Willy Apd

I have to disagree with Dr. Kay on at least one point. This is a "political got you question." A huge one.

True, Bush wasn't the only one who thought Saddam had WMDs. France and Germany thought so. Clinton thought so. Brent Scowcroft, Dick Armey, and Norman Schwarzkopff thought so. And they all agreed the threat was not big enough to warrant invasion. That was even before 9-11, when a real and pressing menace came along that should have demanded our complete attention.

Bush and Blair were the ones who said Saddam could turn his supposed WMDs against us in 45 minutes. They were the ones who dropped hints about atomic weapons and ties with al-Qaeda. They were the ones who set about scaring the public by disrespecting what little evidence we had in order to make Saddam's "threat" seem bigger.

The intelligence analysts saw a molehill and said it was a pitcher's mound. The hawks took that pitcher's mound and made it a mountain range. There's a long paper trail on this. I've mentioned the uranium claim before and I'll do it again: the CIA told the administration there was no evidence, Bush went ahead and made the claim anyway.

Dr. Kay has come around a bit on this matter. He now says maybe this wasn't a case of us "all" being wrong, that there ought to be an investigation to see how the administration handled the intelligence findings that were given it. Translation: to see if the administration distorted the findings. He says he still doubts that happened, but at least he recognizes we have to get to the bottom of it. Not bad.

As you say, Kay does believe Iraq was so chaotic that leaving it unattended could have allowed WMD technology to get into the wrong hands. But you cannot believe that and also believe, as you and the administration now claim, that maybe Saddam's entire WMD arsenal got spirited out of the country during the invasion and is now out there someplace, unaccounted for.

Why? Because if so, the invasion would have defeated the very purpose with which Kay now tries to justify it: creating a situation stable enough to keep dangerous technology from floating around loose.

At any rate, stability hasn't exactly been the hallmark of our time in Iraq. Remember the months of looting that followed the invasion. If there was any danger of Saddam's moribund weapons programs getting into the wrong hands, that would have been the time.

Like StripperLover, I take Dr. Kay seriously when he talks about his area of expertise, which is the existence or nonexistence of Saddam's WMDs and WMD programs. Everything else he has had to say has been informed speculation – in other words, theory. One thing he should have learned from his own findings is that nobody's theories have been working out too well.

 

[HornyBoy007]

Originally posted by StripperLover

& just possibly to line the pockets of their friends such as Haliburton which Mr Cheney left to become the VP. One must ask oneself why a man would leave such a high paying position for one that doesn't pay well in comparison. The CEO of Halliburton currently earns 7.75million per yr & what does the VP of the US make 250k ?

Good point. Halliburton has a contract to provide the US army with oil. A few months ago it was said in the news that the oil sold to the american army was overpriced (double price of the oil that they could have bought from Kuwait). Similar facts were said about Kellog a subdisiary of Halliburton. All that money is of course paid by americans, and used to make bush, chenny, rice and their buddies even richer instead of investing in education, health, jobs creation... (I am not an economist, this is just my HO). bush promised to investigate the case, and a day or two later everybody forgot about the story since Saddam was caught (well, shown on TV).

I am amazed how some people are so blind in front of truth. You have an andminstration that went in two 2 wars in just 3 years. Who started the second war based on some obscure and ever-changing arguments. Who lied about WMDs. Who was involved in corruption. Who has strong links with christian and jewish extremists. Who is in very good terms with Sun Myung Moon, founder of the unification church. I can't help comparing the media coverage of all these facts with the Clinton's affair (I am not a fervent supporter of Clinton neither, but compared to bush ).

 

[Doc Holliday]

Cheney still being paid by Haliburton

"Cheney is still paid by Pentagon contractor"

Bush deputy gets up to $1m from firm with Iraq oil deal

Robert Bryce in Austin, Texas and Julian Borger in Washington
Wednesday March 12, 2003

Halliburton, the Texas company which has been awarded the Pentagon's contract to put out potential oil-field fires in Iraq and which is bidding for postwar construction contracts, is still making annual payments to its former chief executive, the vice-president Dick Cheney.
The payments, which appear on Mr Cheney's 2001 financial disclosure statement, are in the form of "deferred compensation" of up to $1m (£600,000) a year.

When he left Halliburton in 2000 to become George Bush's running mate, he opted not to receive his leaving payment in a lump sum but instead have it paid to him over five years, possibly for tax reasons.

An aide to the vice president said yesterday: "This is money that Mr Cheney was owed by the corporation as part of his salary for the time he was employed by Halliburton and which was a fixed amount paid to him over time."

The aide said the payment was even insured so that it would not be affected even if Halliburton went bankrupt, to ensure there was no conflict of interest.

"Also, the vice president has nothing whatsoever to do with the Pentagon bidding process," the aide added.

The company would not say how much the payments are. The obligatory disclosure statement filled by all top government officials says only that they are in the range of $100,000 and $1m. Nor is it clear how they are calculated.

Halliburton is one of five large US corporations - the others are the Bechtel Group, Fluor Corp, Parsons Corp, and the Louis Berger Group - invited to bid for contracts in what may turn out to be the biggest reconstruction project since the second world war.

It is estimated to be worth up to $900m for the preliminary work alone, such as rebuilding Iraq's hospitals, ports, airports and schools.

The contract winners will be able to establish a presence in post-Saddam Iraq that should give them an invaluable edge in winning future contracts.

The defence department contract awarded to the Halliburton subsidiary, Kellog, Brown & Root (KBR), to control oil fires if Saddam Hussein sets the well heads alight, will put the company in an excellent position to bid for huge contracts when Iraq's oil industry is rehabilitated.

KBR has already benefited considerably from the "war on terror". It has so far been awarded contracts worth nearly $33m to build the detention camp at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba for al-Qaida suspects.

Asked whether the payments to Mr Cheney represented a conflict of interest, Halliburton's spokeswoman, Wendy Hall, said: "We have been working as a government contractor since the 1940s. Since this time, KBR has become the premier provider of logistics and support services to all branches of the military."

In the five years Mr Cheney was at the helm, Halliburton nearly doubled the amount of business it did with the government to $2.3bn. The company also more than doubled its political contributions to $1.2m, overwhelmingly to Republican candidates.

Mr Cheney sold most of his Halliburton shares when he left the company, but retained stock options worth about $8m. He arranged to pay any profits to charity.

 

[Red Paul]

I think Captain Renault means the way people have been posting their Iraq War opinions here instead of shoving them into other threads.

If that's the case, Captain, I'm happy that you're happy. Vote Democrat this year and we'll call it square.

 

[Red Paul]

StripperLover

I must disagree with you on a couple of things. I don't know much about satellite spy technology, but if Bush knew Iraq didn't have WMDs he wouldn't have sent David Kay to find some. Right now we're nine months from an election and Bush looks like the chump of our new century. No politician gets into a situation like that if he can help it.

Also, the Bush administration does have ties with Jewish extremists. The second word there, "extremist," is the important one. As you said, most American Jews vote Democrat and a lot of Jews were either against the war or lukewarm about it.

But hardline supporters of Israel do prefer Bush's Middle East approach to Clinton's because Bush is more lenient to Sharon. One reason for the Bush policy, or at least one reason it fits with his overall politics, is that a lot of born-agains believe Jewish rule over all of Palestine is a precursor to judgment day.

Second, we have the neoconservatives. Some on the right have claimed that anyone who criticizes that bunch is being anti-Semitic. That's stupid, since a lot of the war's opponents are Jewish and the top administration hawks -- Cheney and Rumsfeld -- are not. But beneath the top two you find men like Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, and Elliot Abrams, all Jewish and all hot for taking on Iraq.

I want to be really clear: this does not mean "the Jews" are behind the war. I don’t think anyone here believes that. But when the other poster referred to "Christian and Jewish extremists," maybe this is what he had in mind for the Jewish extremists.

 

[Doc Holliday]

Mother of fallen soldier blames Bush for his unecessary death

Fallen soldier's mother says her son 'died for absolutely nothing'

 

[HornyBoy007]

StripperLover,

I am pretty sure that jewish americans don't vote for christian fundamentalists. What I was trying to say is that there is a kind of agreement between the christian coalition and extremist jews. According to an interpretation of the bible, christian fundamentalists believe that the christ will be back on earth and will govern for a 1000 peaceful years. The return of the christ will occur after the appearance of an anti-christ. These fundamentalists believe that the anti-christ is a muslim and is coming from the middle-east. Some analysts think that fundamentalists believe that saddam is the anti-christ. For sure, they will not say we are going to invade Irak to get rid of the anti-christ. Another condition to the return of the christ is that jews get back their promised land and then convert to christianity. It's a funny association between people with diverging intrests and points of views. Don't forget that the former spokesman of the white house is distinguished member of the Lubavich movement, one of the most extremist movements in judaism.

I am not blaming jews or christians or muslims for this conflict. I am just blaming extremists in all of these 3 religions that are a serious threat to peace.

 

[fensterlein]

I have dream. I dream that prostitution is legalized everywhere and that everybody gets to have sex everyday, and so nobody has time for war.

 

[HornyBoy007]

No comment

 

[willyapd]

Originally posted by fensterlein

I have dream. I dream that prostitution is legalized everywhere and that everybody gets to have sex everyday, and so nobody has time for war.

the best point yet!!!

 

[FaceMaster]

Saw this and thought I'd pass it along:

A Cynical Manipulation

by Charley Reese

Following President Bush's hour-long interview with NBC's Tim Russert,
we can now state conclusively that President Bush deliberately misled
the American people and continues to do so.

Item: Bush claims he was acting on the best intelligence there was when
he decided to go to war.

Fact: The intelligence given to Bush was full of warnings, caveats,
disagreements and doubts as to its reliability. All of this was
expunged, and Bush and his crew stated as a dead certainty that Saddam
Hussein had a large stockpile of weapons of mass destruction.

The aluminum tubes, for example, were claimed by Bush to be necessary to
make a nuclear weapon. The State Department intelligence people and the
Energy Department intelligence people flatly disagreed. They also
expressed disagreement about the prospects of Iraq developing a nuclear
weapon.

Even the CIA warned Bush that the report of Iraq's attempt to buy yellow
cake from Niger was unreliable, but it went into the president's State
of the Union speech anyway.

Item: Bush repeated his claim that Iraq was in violation of Security
Council resolutions.

Fact: If indeed there are no weapons of mass destruction, as it now
appears there are not, then Iraq had complied with U.N. resolutions. The
Iraqis had been saying for years that there were no weapons of mass
destruction, and they were just called liars by American
administrations. Moreover, Israel is in violation of more than 60 UN
resolutions. Thus, UN resolutions are hardly a cause of war.

Item: Bush says that Saddam Hussein was a madman and that a madman
"can't be contained."

Fact: Saddam Hussein had been successfully contained since 1991. Since
the first Gulf War, Saddam had not attacked anyone, fired any weapons at
any of his neighbors or threatened to attack anyone.

Item: Bush claimed that Iraq was a threat to its neighbors as well as to
the United States and its friends (read Israel).

Fact: All of the countries adjacent to Iraq said publicly during the
buildup to war that they did not, I say again, did not consider Iraq a
threat.

Item: Bush keeps repeating that Saddam had used weapons of mass
destruction.

Fact: That was true. They were used in 1988 during the Iran-Iraq War and
not since. One can easily say the same thing of the United States. We
used weapons of mass destruction – nukes during World War II and poison
gases during World War I. Other facts Bush omits are that during the
Iran-Iraq War, the United States was backing Saddam Hussein, and the
U.S. intelligence agencies published a report exonerating Iraq from the
gas attack that killed a village of Kurds.

Item: Bush claims his administration has been "extraordinarily
cooperative" with the commission examining the attacks of Sept. 11,
2001.

Fact: There has been news story after news story about the Bush White
House's extraordinary lack of cooperation and stonewalling. Bush, of
course, admits to never reading any newspapers, so perhaps he is just
disconnected from reality.

One could go on and on. Bush does not seem to grasp that a policy of
pre-emptive wars requires dead-on accurate intelligence. Despite all the
errors in his so-called war on terrorism, Bush has not fired a single
person. He absolutely refuses to hold himself or anybody in his
administration accountable.

Furthermore, he does not seem to grasp the enormous damage he has done
to the image and credibility of the United States. Bush seems to exist
in a deluded state of mind in which he imagines himself as Roosevelt or
Churchill confronting global evil. That's a dangerous state of mind for
a president. Compared with those two leaders, Bush is a mental and moral
midget.


Also great is A History of the Iraq War, Told Totally in Lies: http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/9-29-03/discussion.cgi.40.html

 

[Vladimir]

I have dream. I dream that prostitution is legalized everywhere and that everybody gets to have sex everyday, and so nobody has time for war.

I have sex almost every day. I almost had sex Monday, almost had sex Tuesday, almost had sex Wednesday, almost had....

 

[FaceMaster]

CaptRenault,

I fully agree with your point and I usually do it too, but I got this article from a friend who got it from a friend. The source got lost along the way...

Thanks for the link!