George Bush is Right

Stewart Fleming

Richard Adams wrote:

> Consider this: If Bush really was a competent leader, would he want
> to remain in charge of this mess or pass it off to some other schmuck?

Powell seems to have decided...
<http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/05-04-2004/0002166707&EDATE=>

Tom, this is what I was getting at in an earlier thread about how an
otherwise honorable man can lie for his country. There is a limit.

How much would it take for Ari Fleischer to write his memoirs, I wonder...?

Howard Kveck

In article <SFWlc.7309$Hs1.1864@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:

> "Richard Adams" <ackthpt@concentric.net> wrote in message
> news:c2352af0.0405041336.3ca7c432@posting.google.com...

> > However you feel about it, it's best to look at the facts.
> >
> > 1) It was a hard sell, Saddam Hussein posed an immenent danger with
> > WMD
> > 2) Weapons inspectors could find nothing, UN urged patience to let
> > them do their job.
> > 3) The lack of WMD finds was characterized as evidence of how crafty
> > Saddam's people were.
>
> Notice how cleverly you left out the steps between 3 and 5.
>
> 3a) UN Weapons inspectors in fact found plenty of evidence that there HAD
> been WMD at inspection sights in including such ruses as being held at the
> front gate while large trucks were hurriedly leaving the rear gate. Many,
> many incidents of this type were recorded.

So they were able to pack all their stuff up and move it "out the back
gate" - how long would this take, Tom? The inspections going on before the
invasion were surprise - they'd pick out a site and charge over to it, no
warning. The inspectors reported in the media that they felt they had full
cooperation. They had a mandate to go after any suspicious thing - they
would have gone after any vehicle going out back gates.

> 3b) UN Weapons inspectors were thrown out of Iraq when it looked like they
> were closing in on something.

Are you talking about in the late '90s? Or more recently, like right
before the invasion? If the latter, then please do recall that the
inspectors were, in fact, still in Iraq the day before the bombs started to
drop. As for the earlier one, they actually left on their own after having
been caught spying, not inspecting. Yes, Tom, the team over there back then
was not entirely on the up-and-up.

> 3c) Machinery and chemicals necessary for the production of WMD were in fact
> sold illegally by companies in Germany to Iraq and delivered there. Strange
> that these items were never found either.

Much of that equipment had more uses than just weapons. By the way, US
companies also were involved in the sale of equipment, moving stuff through
foreign subsidiaries (which were no more than freight forwarders at that
point).

> 3d) There was a threat of invasion that lasted many months. During this time
> it was made plain to the staff of Saddam Hussein's military that should they
> be found in possession of WMD they were all be liable for the death penalty
> under UN regulations. More months passed. CIA and other intelligence
> services noted a very large number of heavy trucks moving from the areas in
> which it was believed that WMD were being produced or stored and the Syrian
> border.

There's no proof of what was in any trucks, is there?

> Also Syria appeared to be getting altogether too much oil from Iraq
> to pay for the "food for oil" programs that we now know included payoffs to
> the controlling UN officials to the tune of some $6 billion!

"We now know..." Tom, those are what are called "allegations". Who is
making these allegations? Hmmm, could it be... Ahmed Chalabi? Why, YES!!!!
No credible neutral agency has seen the documents he purports to have on
this. But let's look at the history of Mr. Chalabi. He was convicted in
absentia in Jordan years ago for bank fraud (on the order of about $200m).
(Of course, he got himself the position of "Finance Minister" in the IGC.
Fox in the henhouse?) He ran the Iraqi Nat'l Congress out of London, and
was the golden boy of the Pentagon to take over Iraq after the war was
over. He and the INC are the prime movers of intel and reports that the
Pentagon used to argue its case for the war. But the intel community always
had very serious doubts about their stuff - they repeatedly said the
sources were unreliable, at best. INC supplied most of the info about
chem, biological and nuclear weapons before the war - none have been found
as they described it. In fact, none have been found at all.

But wait, it gets better! The CIA had a coup set up in '96 that was
blown - they believe it was blown by Chalabi because it didn't involve him.
The Jordanians have supplied the US with phone intercepts that show that
Chalabi had prior knowledge of the bombing of the Jordanian embassy on
August 7, 2003. He chose not to pass that info along. At the moment, there
are grave suspicions that Chalabi and his aides have been passing highly
sensitive info about US security ops to the Iranians.

So why should anyone believe a damn thing Ahmed Chalabi says about
"payoffs to UN officials"? He had an agenda all along - that was to see
himself in power. His quote? "As far as we¹re concerned we¹ve been entirely
successful. That tyrant Saddam is gone and the Americans are in Baghdad.
What was said before is not important." In other words, he got the US to do
his dirty work, and it didn't matter what bullshit story he told to get
them to do it. The INC, by the way, gets paid $340K per month to tell lies.
Our tax payer dollars at work...

> > 4) Invasion
> > 5) No weapons found, only old junk left to rust out in the desert.
>
> 5a) In fact, weapons inspectors have claimed that there was significant
> evidence that there had been WMD experimentation and possibly large scale
> production.

In fact, not. Ask David Kay. "Among the closely held internal judgments
of the Iraq Survey Group, overseen by David Kay as special representative
of CIA Director George J. Tenet, are that Iraq's nuclear weapons scientists
did no significant arms-related work after 1991, that facilities with
suspicious new construction proved benign, and that equipment of potential
use to a nuclear program remained under seal or in civilian industrial use."

Further:
"I'm personally convinced that there were not large stockpiles of newly
produced weapons of mass destruction," Kay told the New York Times. "We
don't find the people, the documents or the physical plants that you would
expect to find if the production was going on. I think they gradually
reduced stockpiles throughout the 1990's. Somewhere in the mid-1990's the
large chemical overhang of existing stockpiles was eliminated. The Iraqis
say the they believed that [the UN inspection system] was more effective
[than U.S. analysts believed it was], and they didn't want to get caught."

> > 6) Bush asked for more time, urging patience in finding WMD
> > 7) Still no WMD, so other excuses are paraded for public approval:
> > Saddam evil, etc.
>
>
> 7a) US Liberals tell us that they only way they will believe that is if a
> large scale biological attack is made on a major American city and hopefully
> millions die since anything less couldn't possibly be considered "mass
> destruction".

Tom, this is your presentation of what you believe the evil "Liberals"
you so despise might say. Your statement, of course, has no basis in fact,
or, indeed, reality.
>
> > 8) What pretty much everyone who had any sense could see happened, is
> > happening, the country is descending into chaos.
>
> 8a) Since Liberals refuse to actually talk to the people on the ground in
> Iraq they want to believe the news outlets as if they were trying to provide
> a balanced outlook.

You rely on Fox as a media source. Say no more.

> It sort of reminds one of the Loma Prieta Earthquake in California some

(snipper of biblical proportions)

What the hell are you talking about?

> But we're supposed to believe that Iraq is in total turmoil regardless of
> what the majority of Iraqis are saying.

No one has said it's in "total turmoil", but it is heading that way. And
the reports I read have comments from ranking civilian and military people
who say the majority of Iraqis are NOT happy with things as of right now.
Which is one reason why the non-Iraqis are moving into smaller, more
heavily armed compounds. The pictures of the Abu Ghraib abuse is a huge
thing over there - do you think that is winning any "hearts and minds"? I'm
still waiting for the showers of flowers to happen, Tom.

<http://www.irak.be/ned/nieuws/fallujah7.jpg>

--
tanx,
Howard

"Moby Dick was a work of art, What the hell happened?"


remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

TritonRider

>From: Stewart Fleming stewart.fleming@paradise.net.nz

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/s...=/www/story/05-
04-2004/0002166707&EDATE=

Stewart that was a really good piece, right until we got to the last line
there for no apparent reason other than promoting a politival agenda is a
comment on Cyba.
Don't know if you've noticed all the coverage in the BBC but the rest of the
planet seems to be finally admitting that Castro isn't a great hero. It's
ranked as one of the three least free nations for the press. Mexico has just
pulled their ambassador.
I really have to question why he would screw up a really powerfull on target
piece like this by tossing a flag that say I am biased.
Bill C

Steven L. Sheffield

On 05/04/2004 10:53 PM, in article tr_lc.42$FN.2417@news02.tsnz.net,
"Stewart Fleming" <stewart.fleming@paradise.net.nz> wrote:

>
>
> Richard Adams wrote:
>
>> Consider this: If Bush really was a competent leader, would he want
>> to remain in charge of this mess or pass it off to some other schmuck?
>
> Powell seems to have decided...
> <http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/s...ww/story/05-04-
> 2004/0002166707&EDATE=>


http://us.gq.com/plus/content/?040429plco_01

The actual article mentioned in the press release.


> Tom, this is what I was getting at in an earlier thread about how an
> otherwise honorable man can lie for his country. There is a limit.
>
> How much would it take for Ari Fleischer to write his memoirs, I wonder...?
>

--
Steven L. Sheffield
stevens at veloworks dot com
veloworks at worldnet dot ay tea tee dot net
bellum pax est libertas servitus est ignoratio vis est
ess ay ell tea ell ay kay ee sea aye tee why you ti ay aitch
aitch tee tea pea colon [for word] slash [four ward] slash double-you
double-yew double-ewe dot veloworks dot com [four word] slash

Tom Kunich

You tell me Howard, how long would it take to load up a tanker truck full of
binary gas agent?

I do see your point, Saddam was buying up specialized equipment used in the
making of weapons so that he could use it to make fertilizer.

And you answer that what Chalabi says is allegations while planting another
entire set of allegations. Howard, Howard, Howard!

Tom Kunich

Stewart, why would you take a piece of biased reporting from a "reporter"
from GQ for crying out loud. Do you propose that some guy who writes for a
magazine that rivals Queer Eye for the Straight Guy is demonstrating
political astuteness?

"Stewart Fleming" <stewart.fleming@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:tr_lc.42$FN.2417@news02.tsnz.net...
>
>
> Richard Adams wrote:
>
> > Consider this: If Bush really was a competent leader, would he want
> > to remain in charge of this mess or pass it off to some other schmuck?
>
> Powell seems to have decided...
>
<http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/s.../www/story/05-0
4-2004/0002166707&EDATE=>
>
> Tom, this is what I was getting at in an earlier thread about how an
> otherwise honorable man can lie for his country. There is a limit.
>
> How much would it take for Ari Fleischer to write his memoirs, I
wonder...?
>

benjo maso

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:SFWlc.7309$Hs1.1864@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
(snip)
> 3d) There was a threat of invasion that lasted many months. During this
time
> it was made plain to the staff of Saddam Hussein's military that should
they
> be found in possession of WMD they were all be liable for the death
penalty
> under UN regulations. More months passed. CIA and other intelligence
> services noted a very large number of heavy trucks moving from the areas
in
> which it was believed that WMD were being produced or stored and the
Syrian
> border.


Do you really think that a nation threatened by a immenent invasion will
bury it most deadly weapons in the sand or export them to another country?
Sadam was undoubtedly a lousy strategist, but even he couldn't have been
that stupid. He had used chemical and biological weapons against the Kurds
and the Iranians, he would have used them against the Americans and British
as well. Or do you think he suddenly had got religion? He or his military
staff certainly couldn't have been afraid of a "death penalty under UN
regulations", because there isn't such a thing. And besides, in the meantime
most Iraqi leaders have been caught. So do you really think the USA still
wouldn't know where to look for those famous "hidden WMD's"? Or do you think
the Americans are too soft on interrogation techniques?

Benjo Maso

TM

"benjo maso" <benjo.maso@chello.nl> wrote in message
news:c7asuk$1nuhb$1@ID-75468.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
>
> Do you really think that a nation threatened by a immenent invasion will
> bury it most deadly weapons in the sand or export them to another country?
> Sadam was undoubtedly a lousy strategist, but even he couldn't have been
> that stupid.

He wasn't stupid. He lost one war ('91) and managed to stay in power. It
would be very simple minded to think that Saddam thought he was going to win
the actual military part of any war with the US. He knew that his only
chance was to defeat the US politically. Step one in that for even a simple
minded dictator would be to not get caught with an illegal weapons program.
As long as he did that, others - like you - could make a case for him.

JP

Curtis L. Russell <curtis@md-bicycling.org> wrote in message news:<mktf90ttdqjoncelercacufikate6afu4e@4ax.com>...
> On 4 May 2004 11:05:43 -0700, SocSecTrainWreck@earthlink.net (JP)
> wrote:
>
> >So, if Bush didn't use the word "imminent" (or equivalent)
> >in justifying the war on Iraq, he attacked Iraq illegally and is
> >therefore guilty of crimes against humanity and should be impeached
> >and sent to the Hague to stand trial.
>
> International law is not that simple, nor does it have just one set of
> reasons for starting a war.

It actually is that simple when it comes to determining the legality
of invading another country.

> First of all, it would fail for the simple
> reason that the declaration of war was a decade ago and for relatively
> straight forward reasons.

Sorry, I can't make much sense out of this sentence because of its
twisted syntax, but Gulf War I provides no rationale for Gulf War II.

> What has existed since is a cease fire that
> was violated by Iraq on an ongoing basis.
> The Bush administration was
> inept for not simply saying that Hussein had violated the cease fire
> too many times and a state of hostilities has resumed.

Self-defense against the no-fly zone is not violation of a cease fire.
The no-fly zone, while admirable in its purpose, was not the product
of the UN Security Council, and Iraq therefore had the right to fire
on armed planes of a foreign power making incursions over its
territory. I supported the no-fly zones, and I think Iraq would have
been smart to allow the incursions, but Iraq was not breaking a
cease-fire by defending itself.

And I don't know anyone who has tried to claim that as a legal basis
for Gulf War II, probably because no one except a True Believing
Dittohead would take it seriously.

Furthermore, it is clear and explicit that the Security Council has
the sole authority for interpreting its own resolutions; I think we
all know that the Security Council does not agree with your flimsy
excuse.

> That's largely the same reason the North Koreans didn't have to
> explain hacking some U.S. servicemen to death in the demilitarized
> zone some years ago.

Non sequitur.

> Second of all, there is a basis for invading when a state refuses to
> abide by the standards of international law and poses a continuing
> threat to other nations.

No, there's not, unless explicitly authorized by the Security Council.
(See above reference to authority to interpret Security Council
resolutions, in case you're about to tell us that the first resolution
authorized the invasion.)

> That is a rather badly abused basis that has
> been used by the honest and the sanctimonius and those just looking
> for a reason, but it remains a valid basis. Imminent has nothing to do
> with it.

It has everything to do with it, and the basis in international law is
where the word "imminent" originated before making its way into the
public discourse about the justification for the war.

To restate, under the UN Charter, which is a binding treaty as
understood under the US Consitution and explcitly supersedes any other
existing treaties, the only allowable reasons for war are self defense
(Article 51) and Security Council authorized use of force (Article
42). The provisions of Article 51 have been understood to include the
threat of imminent in addition to actual attack. There is nothing
else. The signatories have agreed otherwise not to resort to war,
ever. If Bush does not claim that attack by Iraq was imminent (or
equivalent), he and his conspirators would appear to be war criminals.

JP

JP

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<SFWlc.7309$Hs1.1864@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...

> 3a) UN Weapons inspectors in fact found plenty of evidence that there HAD
> been WMD at inspection sights in including such ruses as being held at the
> front gate while large trucks were hurriedly leaving the rear gate. Many,
> many incidents of this type were recorded.

The UN inspectors were clear that the Iraqis had begun real
cooperation with the inspection teams at the time that the US forced
the inspectors out of Iraq.

> 3b) UN Weapons inspectors were thrown out of Iraq when it looked like they
> were closing in on something.

They weren't thrown out by the Iraqis, though; they were forced out by
the US because we were getting ready to invade Iraq.

For the sake of brevity, I have not bothered to respond individually
to the rest of the claims you listed. They are nevertheless complete
nonsense, the kind of stuff you might pick up on Limbaugh's show,
designed to buck up the True Believers lest they get overwhelmed by
cognitive dissonance.

> But we're supposed to believe that Iraq is in total turmoil regardless of
> what the majority of Iraqis are saying.

Sheesh!

JP

benjo maso

"TM" <xyz@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cY6mc.2278$Ua5.1648436@monger.newsread.com...
>
> "benjo maso" <benjo.maso@chello.nl> wrote in message
> news:c7asuk$1nuhb$1@ID-75468.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
> >
> > Do you really think that a nation threatened by a immenent invasion will
> > bury it most deadly weapons in the sand or export them to another
country?
> > Sadam was undoubtedly a lousy strategist, but even he couldn't have been
> > that stupid.
>
> He wasn't stupid. He lost one war ('91) and managed to stay in power. It
> would be very simple minded to think that Saddam thought he was going to
win
> the actual military part of any war with the US. He knew that his only
> chance was to defeat the US politically. Step one in that for even a
simple
> minded dictator would be to not get caught with an illegal weapons
program.
> As long as he did that, others - like you - could make a case for him.



To win politically? How? You mean Sadam would have thought that if the
Americans wouldn't find WMD's, they would offer him excuses, reinstall him
in power, rebuilt the cities, sew on the lost limbs of Iraqi citizens and
pay damages? Besides, you underestimate the megalomania of dictators in
general and Sadam in particular. I would be surprised if he was really
convinced that he couldn't win.

Benjo Maso

Richard Adams

Stewart Fleming <stewart.fleming@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message news:<tr_lc.42$FN.2417@news02.tsnz.net>...
> Richard Adams wrote:
>
> > Consider this: If Bush really was a competent leader, would he want
> > to remain in charge of this mess or pass it off to some other schmuck?
>
> Powell seems to have decided...
> <http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/05-04-2004/0002166707&EDATE=>
>
> Tom, this is what I was getting at in an earlier thread about how an
> otherwise honorable man can lie for his country. There is a limit.

Powell indicated early in the first term that he was less than happy
with things and wouldn't be part of a second term. I think his
memoirs, if he really opened up would be an eye opener. He looks like
he's aged 20 years in the past 3.

> How much would it take for Ari Fleischer to write his memoirs, I wonder...?

A fat wad of cash, but what are you expecting? Another memoir like
O'Neill's or Clarke's probably wouldn't really shake public opinion
much, those in denial will remain so (and chalk it up to another axe
to grind for lucre) and those who see what's been going on will
continue to shake their heads in wonderment.

It is already quite something that two books by people from an
administration still in place have had their works published. It was
noted someone, probably BBC, that this is highly unusual and that it's
so unusual says something.

TM

"benjo maso" <benjo.maso@chello.nl> wrote in message
news:c7b16d$1rle0$1@ID-75468.news.uni-berlin.de...
>

>
>
> To win politically? How?

The strong opposition to the US is indicative of the manner in which Saddam
sought to win. In fact, I would say he won the political war because the US
had to go almost alone. He did this by turning the coalition against itself
and turning himself and his country into the victim despite the fact they
were the original aggressors in the conflict.


>You mean Sadam would have thought that if the
> Americans wouldn't find WMD's, they would offer him excuses, reinstall him
> in power, rebuilt the cities, sew on the lost limbs of Iraqi citizens and
> pay damages?

No. But what if a last minute settlement to avoid the initial hostilities
were a fairly blanket inspection of the country. Surely, no one would
advocate leaving ditching the wmd to the last minute?

>Besides, you underestimate the megalomania of dictators in
> general and Sadam in particular.

I've never met the man. He seems ruthlessly pragmatic with above average
intelligence to me. I will not argue that he doesn't have an ego!

>I would be surprised if he was really
> convinced that he couldn't win.
>

We disagree. I think he knew he would not have air superiority and that
fact would rule out any chance of a military victory in the conventional
sense. He would only be able to win by making the cost too high for the US
in causalities and public opinion. This again, is why it was in his best
interest to do anything but be caught with wmd. Priority one.

B. Lafferty

"benjo maso" <benjo.maso@chello.nl> wrote in message
news:c7b16d$1rle0$1@ID-75468.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> "TM" <xyz@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:cY6mc.2278$Ua5.1648436@monger.newsread.com...
> >
> > "benjo maso" <benjo.maso@chello.nl> wrote in message
> > news:c7asuk$1nuhb$1@ID-75468.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > >
> > >
> > > Do you really think that a nation threatened by a immenent invasion
will
> > > bury it most deadly weapons in the sand or export them to another
> country?
> > > Sadam was undoubtedly a lousy strategist, but even he couldn't have
been
> > > that stupid.
> >
> > He wasn't stupid. He lost one war ('91) and managed to stay in power.
It
> > would be very simple minded to think that Saddam thought he was going to
> win
> > the actual military part of any war with the US. He knew that his only
> > chance was to defeat the US politically. Step one in that for even a
> simple
> > minded dictator would be to not get caught with an illegal weapons
> program.
> > As long as he did that, others - like you - could make a case for him.
>
>
>
> To win politically? How? You mean Sadam would have thought that if the
> Americans wouldn't find WMD's, they would offer him excuses, reinstall him
> in power, rebuilt the cities, sew on the lost limbs of Iraqi citizens and
> pay damages? Besides, you underestimate the megalomania of dictators in
> general and Sadam in particular. I would be surprised if he was really
> convinced that he couldn't win.
>
> Benjo Maso

It looks, at present, as though the "coalition" hasn't won. Does that mean
that Saddam hasn't lost yet? We need to define winning in this context.