George Bush is Right

TM

"benjo maso" <benjo.maso@chello.nl> wrote in message
news:c7bfk8$218dc$1@ID-75468.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> In that case why would he have kept them? He certainly
> would have destroyed them or let them rust. And according to the UN
> inspectors that was exactly what he did.
>

You're too much!

You clearly imply above that you believe that he had wmd. Earlier you state
that you believe he would use them against the US if he had the chance. So,
according to you, he has the capacity to produce wmd and the intent to use
them. He just didn't happen to have them handy at precisely the correct
time for your tastes! You're joking, right?

Stewart Fleming

TritonRider wrote:

> In the original story, at least it's in context. I disagree with the position,
> but at least now it could be discussed reasonably as part of the news. In the

I read the original when it became available here this afternoon and
it's clear the Cuba statement is just athrowaway comment.

> cut and paste piece it's just a random political statement.

To be fair, the press release did list "highlights". Odd choice for
that one, unless you remember that the point of a press release is to
push buttons and generate interest.

On related topic, someone please tell me that Matt Drudge is being
satirical here:
<http://www.drudgereport.com/rcmu.htm>

Howard Kveck

In article <mmhmc.8789$V97.4376@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:

> "benjo maso" <benjo.maso@chello.nl> wrote in message
> news:c7b16d$1rle0$1@ID-75468.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > To win politically? How?
>
> Mostly by paying off UN officials to protect him

There you go again on this "pay off" business - not substantiated at
this time...

> Benjo, all that nasty business aside, it might be that the weapons program
> was a hoax on a grand scale. But so what? Precisely what difference does it
> make whether there WERE WMD or not as long as they had convinced the world
> that they were there? Hussein was controlling the region and threatening
> other countries on the strength of those weapons whether they existed or
> not.

If he was, in fact, "controlling the region", why did none of his
neighbors feel strongly enough about it to join the "coalition" against
him? It seems like it would be in their interests to be rid of him, yet
none joined...

--
tanx,
Howard

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


remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Howard Kveck

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

> "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.

I don't think it took him very long to figure out he was never going to
remain in power once the ball started rolling, Benjo. Bush made it obvious
that no matter what Saddam did, the US would be coming in. I look at it
this way: He may have thought that (1) if he gave up any weapons he had,
he'd have no chance to defend himself, or (2) he could hide any weapons he
had and inflict max damage once the US actually invaded. If he'd chosen
(2), he'd be slaughtered because of it. Choice (1) is really no better
because of Bush's way of approaching the situation. The problem with Bush's
approach was that it made it clear that invasion was inevitable, rather
than a last resort. I think he knew this time was different from GW1, in
that GHWB always made it clear that once they were out of Kuwait, that was
about it.

--
tanx,
Howard

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


remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Howard Kveck

In article <uD5mc.7870$V97.7315@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:

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

Don't you think it's a moot point, since the inspectors who were around
then have reported that they felt they had full cooperation, and did not
describe any situations like the ones you did? And that they (and the US
teams, of which there have been several, including the one lead by David
Kay) have not only found no weapons, but no evidence that there were any
around recently?

> 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.

The reports of the inspectors indicate that the equipment was not as
specialized as you seem to believe. And, once again, they also report that
there is no evidence of any new production going on.

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

Much of what I listed is easily verifiable, and has been in the public
record and open knowledge for some time. Other things were described in a
manner that made it apparent that they were allegations that are taken very
seriously by the intel people - it is worth noting that Chalabi seems to be
on the way out as a US resource. My point was that Ahmed Chalabi is like a
combination of the boy who cried wolf and a street hustler; he has an
agenda (which can be summed up as putting himself first and foremost) and
will say and do anything to forward that agenda. Hence, any allegations he
makes but will not allow independent verification of should be taken with a
large grain of salt.

If you want more info on him:
<http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/05/04/chalabi/print.html>

--
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

>On related topic, someone please tell me that Matt Drudge is being
>satirical here:
><http://www.drudgereport.com/rcmu.htm>

I would guess so but I don't read Drudge. He's in the same category for me as
Michael Moore and Jayson Blair. When I want to be amused by fake news theres
only the incomparable "Weekly World News" available at supermarket checkout
stands everywhere.
http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/
Try it when they come back.
Bill C

Carl Sundquist

"TritonRider" <tritonrider@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> I would guess so but I don't read Drudge. He's in the same category for
me as
> Michael Moore and Jayson Blair. When I want to be amused by fake news
theres
> only the incomparable "Weekly World News" available at supermarket
checkout
> stands everywhere.
> http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/

I've wondered if Tom Kunich and Ed Anger are the same person.

TritonRider

>From: "Carl Sundquist" carlsun@cox-internet.com

>I've wondered if Tom Kunich and Ed Anger are the same person.

Carl YOU owe me a keyboard if I can't get the tea out of it that I just spewed
into it. On second thought the laugh was more than worth the cost of a new
keyboard.
Bill C

benjo maso

"TM" <lkjd@lkjk.com> wrote in message
news:109j9iudbudq5b2@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "benjo maso" <benjo.maso@chello.nl> wrote in message
> news:c7bfk8$218dc$1@ID-75468.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > In that case why would he have kept them? He certainly
> > would have destroyed them or let them rust. And according to the UN
> > inspectors that was exactly what he did.
> >
>
> You're too much!
>
> You clearly imply above that you believe that he had wmd. Earlier you
state
> that you believe he would use them against the US if he had the chance.
So,
> according to you, he has the capacity to produce wmd and the intent to use
> them. He just didn't happen to have them handy at precisely the correct
> time for your tastes! You're joking, right?


Perhaps I haven't made myself clear enough, but what I mean is quite simple.
First of all: of course Saddam once had wmd's and he has used them. That's
an indisputed fact. The question is; what did he do with them after the
first Gulf war. IMO it has absolutely no sense keeping wmd's if you have no
intent to use them anyway. But if you do have an intent to use them, war
seems to be the proper moment, especially when your country is invaded and
you don't have the troops and the arms to withstand the attack. So the
logical reason that Saddam didn't use wmd's is that he just didn't have
them. The theory that he must have buried them somewhere seems to quite
illogical. What's more, even after the Americans have searched for a year
and spent hundreds of millions dollars there is still no proof whatsoever
that Saddam did conceal them. And I'm afraid the theory of president Bush
that they still might be somewhere, because in Libya there was a stock of 50
tons mustard gas on a chicken farm, doens't hold water IMO - and not only
because they were only 26 tons of mustard gas in Libya of which nothing was
found on a chicken farm.

Benjo Maso

benjo maso

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:aphmc.8795$V97.2147@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "benjo maso" <benjo.maso@chello.nl> wrote in message
> news:c7bfo7$1uv2h$1@ID-75468.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > It's not yet clear who had won. On the other hand it's certain that
Saddam
> > has lost: his two favourite sons are killed and he is in prison.
>
> Benjo, you underestimate Lafferty. As a lawyer he doesn't see that yet as
a
> failure. After all, there's ALWAYS another appeal.


Yes, but in this case only in heaven or hell, I'm afraid ...

benjo maso

"Howard Kveck" <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote in message
news:YOURhoward-DEBBA3.22125005052004@netnews.comcast.net...
> In article <c7b16d$1rle0$1@ID-75468.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> "benjo maso" <benjo.maso@chello.nl> wrote:
>
> > "TM" <xyz@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:cY6mc.2278$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.
>
> I don't think it took him very long to figure out he was never going to
> remain in power once the ball started rolling, Benjo. Bush made it obvious
> that no matter what Saddam did, the US would be coming in. I look at it
> this way: He may have thought that (1) if he gave up any weapons he had,
> he'd have no chance to defend himself, or (2) he could hide any weapons he
> had and inflict max damage once the US actually invaded. If he'd chosen
> (2), he'd be slaughtered because of it. Choice (1) is really no better
> because of Bush's way of approaching the situation. The problem with
Bush's
> approach was that it made it clear that invasion was inevitable, rather
> than a last resort. I think he knew this time was different from GW1, in
> that GHWB always made it clear that once they were out of Kuwait, that was
> about it.


That seems all very logical, and it's quite possible you're right. On the
other hand, I wonder why Saddam didn't use the scorched earth strategy, why
he didn't blow up the oil wells, as the Iraqi's did in Kuwait. IMO it's not
impossible that he didn't because he still thought he had a chance to win.
Of course, all those claims that he would destroy the invading armies, etc.
were propaganda. But on the other hand, people have often an inclination to
believe their own propaganda. At the end, even Goebbels did.

Benjo Maso

Robert Chung

Carl Sundquist wrote:
> "TritonRider" <tritonrider@aol.com> wrote in message
>>
>> I would guess so but I don't read Drudge. He's in the same category
>> for me as Michael Moore and Jayson Blair. When I want to be amused by
>> fake news theres only the incomparable "Weekly World News" available
>> at supermarket checkout stands everywhere.
>> http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/
>
> I've wondered if Tom Kunich and Ed Anger are the same person.

There's some resemblance. One of the things that's hard to get in Paris is
a Weekly World News.

Eddie Clontz died earlier this year.

TM

"Curtis L. Russell" <curtis@the-md-russells.org> wrote in message
news:acti90ha1fqa750tv3p930mccfpt12ufsf@4ax.com...
> On 5 May 2004 08:08:36 -0700,

>it is interesting the 'damned if you do, damned
> if you don't' that all U.S. presidents will be dealing with as the
> head of the lone superpower.

Agreed.

> Republican or Democrat, the 'loyal opposition' will try the president
> on the basis of what is 'true' in a much clearer hindsight. If the Al
> Queda had dropped some canisters of gas in New York, Bush would be
> just as condemned for doing too little as he is accused of acting
> precipitously now.

Agreed. What is sad to me is that if Clinton or Kerry were president on
9/11 I am almost certain that they would have made the same deciscion and
that 90% of the posters here would be arguing the other side!

I say this because it is relatively uncontested that Iraq and Al Queda both
wish to see the US destroyed and were committed to attacking the US
mainland. It is also fairly uncontested that they were working on, or at
one time had, wmd. Would any president allow them the time to launch an
attack that the US's worst enemies would agree justified retribution? This
seems to be the only scenario that would satisfy many of the posters.

>Maybe his arrogance is simply realizing that and
> deciding a course that he thought - at the time - would lead to the
> fewest overall casualties.

To get back to your 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' point, if you
were making the call what side would you error on? If you thought there was
a reasonable chance that stronger attacks were possible, would you want to
treat the causalities created by the attack or created by stopping the
attack from happening?

JP

Curtis L. Russell <curtis@the-md-russells.org> wrote in message news:<acti90ha1fqa750tv3p930mccfpt12ufsf@4ax.com>...
> On 5 May 2004 08:08:36 -0700, SocSecTrainWreck@earthlink.net (JP)
> wrote:
>
> >> 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.
>
> The syntax isn't twisted. We declared war a decade ago. We had good
> reasons for doing so. There was no peace at the end of that war- just
> a ceasefire. A ceasefire does not end a war unless superceded by a
> peace treaty or other formal end of hostilities.

Your reference to a declaration of war a decade ago had an unclear
implied antecedent (which war?). There was no declaration of war for
Gulf War I which was well over a decade ago, so everything that
follows in your assertion is not worth considering.

> Hussein fired on enough U.S. planes in legitimate flight patterns to
> warrant declaring the ceasefire violated and proceeding back to
> hostilities. The reason for their fllight is not specifically relevant
> - it is enough that it was a U.S. plane for the U.S. to declare the
> cease fire violated.

This is complete nonsense. There is no such thing as a "legitimate
flight pattern" in an unauthorized intrusion by an armed warplane of a
foreign power. And, regardless, there would have been no justification
for renewing hostilities without explicit authorization from the UN
Security Council.

> Technically a better basis for hostilities than anything that the
> administration actually used.

What they might have used but didn't is completely beside the point.
What they did use is the point, and the paradox remains: imminent or
not, liar or war criminal?

> While I didn't think the war was appropriate at the point it was
> declared (since the administration wants to declare a new war, I'll
> use that terminology), it is interesting the 'damned if you do, damned
> if you don't' that all U.S. presidents will be dealing with as the
> head of the lone superpower. Rwanda - we're at fault for not going in
> early enough. For standing aside as innocent civilians were killed.
>
> They were killed by a government as legally elected as that of Iraq.

The big difference is that the Rwandans were being massacred by the
hundreds of thousands. That was not happening, or anything close to
it, at the time of our invasion of Iraq. In fact, at the time Hussein
was doing his bloodiest work, we were supplying him with intelligence
and Rumsfeld was shaking his hand.

But we probably should have done something in Rwanda. The damning
would have come from the GOP.

> Republican or Democrat, the 'loyal opposition' will try the president
> on the basis of what is 'true' in a much clearer hindsight. If the Al
> Queda had dropped some canisters of gas in New York, Bush would be
> just as condemned for doing too little as he is accused of acting
> precipitously now. Maybe his arrogance is simply realizing that and
> deciding a course that he thought - at the time - would lead to the
> fewest overall casualties.

I'm not waiting for al Qaeda to drop gas canisters on New York; I'm
saying it now: Bush is doing too little to protect the homeland, while
acting precipitously, stupidly, stubbornly, in Iraq. The many tens of
billions (not to mention national focus) being spent on the war in
Iraq could have done real things in hardening our homeland defenses,
for which almost nothing has been done beyond securing airliners
against future hijackings.

JP