×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Powell Aide Says Case for War a 'Hoax'

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 8 years ago | from the voices-getting-lost-in-the-mess dept.

Politics 931

PBS recently aired an interview with Col. Lawrence B. Wilkerson (Ret), Chief of Staff at the Department of State from Aug 2002 - January 2005, addressing some of the skepticism surrounding the pre-war claims made by the Bush administration. Wilkerson claims in no uncertain terms that he "participated in a hoax on the American people, the international community and the United Nations Security Council." This is not the first time that Wilkerson has spoken out against the administration and intelligence community.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

931 comments

Welcome to the real world guys. (5, Insightful)

bazmail (764941) | more than 8 years ago | (#14651399)

Everyone outside the US already knows this.

Re:Welcome to the real world guys. (4, Insightful)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 8 years ago | (#14651520)

And half the people inside the US know it too (not coincidentally, it's the same half who doesn't use Faux News as their sole source of information, and who voted against Bush). The trouble is that the other half are the ones running the country at the moment...

Re:Welcome to the real world guys. (0, Troll)

east coast (590680) | more than 8 years ago | (#14651748)

The trouble is that the other half are the ones running the country at the moment...

You mean the half that wasn't involved in the unprovoked bombing of Afganistan during the Clinton administration? That didn't have anything to do with the problems we now face in the middle east does it? Or is it somehow different?

Re:Welcome to the real world guys. (2, Informative)

Martin Blank (154261) | more than 8 years ago | (#14651798)

The strikes against Afghanistan were legitimate, if largely ineffective; the strikes the same night against Sudan were not.

Re:Welcome to the real world guys. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14652215)

you mean Drudge was wrong? It wasn't about diverting attention from Monica Lewinsky? It was just coincidental timing?
  How about taking campaign cash from the PLA? Or letting his drinking buddiers at Loral ship over top shelf targeting tech for missiles? An "honest mistake"? Vince foster levitating out of his office to be found way out in some park, then clinton aides getting to ransack his offices before the cops did? An "honest mistake"? You want more, there's dozens. Hey, how about supporting the islamo/narco fascists in the KLA and attacking Serbia, when serbia dared to try and stop an outright invasion from albania? Or do you think it is proper to just let some nation invade another, they are just supposed to eat it raw? of course the serbs fought back, using simiar nasty tactics THAT WE ARE DOING right now in the middle east. Just we call it "detaining" not kidnapping, we call it "collateral damage" not genocide, we call it "stern interrogation methods" not torture..

Face reality, we have globalist traitorus goons, who are also blood thirsty killers for profit or political gain, in both parties, and *thoroughly* entrenced in the bureacracy and career spook and military areas, they just switch public-facade crime gang leadership around to keep the rabble amused and faked out there is some overwhelmingly different "choice" if you "vote" to pick crime gang A or B. And by all means, don't "waste your vote" by choosing something other than crime gang A or B!

Marked? (5, Insightful)

haluness (219661) | more than 8 years ago | (#14651400)

I wonder whether he'll be marked - crazy, unreliable, or simply unpatriotic

Re:Marked? (3, Insightful)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 8 years ago | (#14651439)

And why can't he be marked all three?

Re:Marked? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14651874)

And why can't he be marked all three?

Did you miss the memo? A true American holds only one opinion on any subject. Holding multiple opinions, or recognising the complexity of any issue, is "flip-flopping", and only weak men and terrorists do that. People have lost elections for less.

Re:Marked? (2, Insightful)

jilles (20976) | more than 8 years ago | (#14651460)

No they'll simply ignore him. Has worked just fine so far. It's not like that wasn't very obvious anyway.

The Hills are Alive With the Sound of Gunfire (5, Interesting)

Philip K Dickhead (906971) | more than 8 years ago | (#14651815)

Smedley Butler [wikipedia.org]
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Smedley Darlington Butler (July 30, 1881 - June 21, 1940), nicknamed "the fighting Quaker" and "Old Gimlet Eye," was a Major General in the U.S. Marine Corps and, at the time of his death, the most decorated Marine in U.S. history. Butler was awarded the Medal of Honor twice during his career, one of only 19 people to be so decorated. He was noted for his outspoken left-wing views and his book War is a Racket [veteransforpeace.org] , one of the first works describing the military-industrial complex. After retiring from service, Butler became a popular speaker at meetings organized by veterans, communists, pacifists and church groups in the 1930s. Butler came forward to the U.S. Congress in 1934 to report that a proposed coup had been plotted by wealthy industrialists to overthrow the government of President Franklin D. Roosevelt.
War Is A Racket [veteransforpeace.org]

It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

In the World War [I] a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.
----

-- Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC. [fas.org]

War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.

I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.

Re:Marked? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14651504)

He'll be scheduled to "disappear"

Re:Marked? (1)

toddbu (748790) | more than 8 years ago | (#14651538)

I wonder whether he'll be marked - crazy, unreliable, or simply unpatriotic

I think that people have good reason to be cautious, although I don't think his claims should be immediately dismissed. I'm always curious, however, why people don't come forward with information right away. After all, this guy was a Colonel, so it shouldn't be in his nature to be a chicken-shit and withhold information.

Re:Marked? (3, Insightful)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 8 years ago | (#14651773)

It is very strongly in the nature of career military personnel to shut up and follow orders, even when you're pretty sure those orders are wrong. The longer you're in and the harder you've worked at it -- and you don't get an eagle without being in a good long time and working very hard -- the stronger this impulse becomes. It takes time and accumulated outrage to overcome this.

Re:Marked? (5, Interesting)

ti1ion (239188) | more than 8 years ago | (#14652006)

Maybe you should have read the story. You see, he responded that -- until 6 months ago -- he did not know there was dissent among the intelligence community that gave him the information he relied on to make his case. You can argue that he was stupid, or anything else you like, but he relied on his staff, and the intelligence community, to let him know what was fact and what was in dispute. According to him, this was not presented. He was told the information was "rock solid."

Give the man credit for speaking out once he found out that the system was broken. He makes a very strong argument against the way the Bush administration works.

Re:Marked? (1)

Saeed al-Sahaf (665390) | more than 8 years ago | (#14652082)

I'm always curious, however, why people don't come forward with information right away. After all, this guy was a Colonel, so it shouldn't be in his nature to be a chicken-shit and withhold information.

Such things can have a very big impact on your career opertunities. At the Colonel level, he can be expected to want some type of executive or think-tank job. Sometimes the ability to tow the compaby line and stick to it later on is a job requierment. I think he took great persona risk in voicing his opinions on this.

This isn't just about the Bush cabal! (5, Insightful)

dada21 (163177) | more than 8 years ago | (#14651402)

I've been watching Wilkerson's speeches and interviews and opinions since early 2005. He's been one of the highest ranking officials to speak about the cabal that is in control of the White House now, but he also has inferred that the cabal has been in power for longer than the currency administration has been. For those who are anti-Bush, do not believe the Clinton was not part of the power party, either.

I strongly believe that the true case for war was to keep the petrodollar in power. I also believe that almost every war and military action we've been involved in since 1913 has been primarily for control of the global currency base, not for oil or trade or communism or any of the usual suspects.

Iran's current oil bourse theories came along just before the power party started beating the war drums against Iraq. I posted today the link to the Cheuvreux Report [gata.org] that reconfirms my crazy tinfoil hat theories about the control of the dollar, and this time from a huge international investment bank. War is the health of the State, said Randolph Bourne. For millenia, war was always about directly controlling others. Yet in the recent centuries, war has been about controlling others indirectly -- by controlling the means of barter between people.

No matter what Bush or Rice or Clinton or Nixon or Kennedy have said, hindsight lets us see what they were really about -- making sure that their peers and families and cronies were at the front of the welfare lines when our Federal Reserve was handing out newly printed paper dollars. To believe anything else is to continue to be a pawn to the system.

Re:This isn't just about the Bush cabal! (4, Funny)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 8 years ago | (#14651468)

For those who are anti-Bush, do not believe the Clinton was not part of the power party, either.

Triple negative! Followed by postfix conjugation!! That's like 1,000,000,000 Grammar nazi points!!!!

Re:This isn't just about the Bush cabal! (1)

dada21 (163177) | more than 8 years ago | (#14651499)

That's like 1,000,000,000 Grammar nazi points!!!!

I don't meta-grammar nazi, so I don't get grammar nazi points ;)

Actually, looking back at the sentence makes me laugh, so look at it as a +1 Funny Monday morning joke maybe, hah.

Re:This isn't just about the Bush cabal! (3, Insightful)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 8 years ago | (#14651577)

For those who are anti-Bush, do not believe the Clinton was not part of the power party, either.
Why is anyone against Bush assumed to be for Clinton? Aren't we allowed to have the opinion that they both suck?
I strongly believe that the true case for war was to keep the petrodollar in power. I also believe that almost every war and military action we've been involved in since 1913 has been primarily for control of the global currency base, not for oil or trade or communism or any of the usual suspects.
Indeed; if you think about it, we started this Iraq war for exactly the same reason as the Japanese started [the Pacific theatre of] World War II.

Keep in mind (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14651582)

dad21 is the same idiot who insisted repatedly that parents were responsible for their children getting kidnapped, because the parents should have watched them 24/7. That's who you're in bed with when you listen to him.

Re:This isn't just about the Bush cabal! (2, Insightful)

Joey Vegetables (686525) | more than 8 years ago | (#14651585)

I strongly believe that the true case for war was to keep the petrodollar in power

I agree, although a side "benefit" would have been bases from which to promote continued instability in the Balkans and central Asia, regions where instability is frankly a benefit to the Empire because it potentially disrupts the supply of oil between major producers and potential future foes of the Empire.

And the Empire is not just the US, although the US has been chosen, for its economic and military strength, to do most of its "dirty work."

But all that having been said . . . why does the current strategy continue when it is so obviously doomed to fail? The supremacy of the dollar was based solely on the strength of the U.S. economy, which is now widely known to have the appearance of strength only because of the apparent strength of the dollar. No one of course wants to be the last ones holding dollars, but everyone knows that the collapse is only a matter of time, and probably a short time at that.

*cough*BULLSH*T*cough* (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14652097)

Don't tell me... the right thing to do is to buy gold... ::rolling eyes::

Re:This isn't just about the Bush cabal! (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | more than 8 years ago | (#14651677)

hindsight lets us see what they were really about
Hindsight mostly benefits, but also loses loses something by separation from context.
I think this particularly true concerning the motives of the leadership.
But, hey: there is good money in retrospective pettifoggery, if the Kennedy assassination (or Area 51, or Pearl Harbor, or ...) is any indicator. Viva capitalism.

Re:This isn't just about the Bush cabal! (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14651750)

I also believe that almost every war and military action we've been involved in since 1913 has been primarily for control of the global currency base, not for oil or trade or communism or any of the usual suspects.

Well I agree with your other points, except this one. Keep in mind that it wasn't until the late 1940's that the US had anything resembling control of the global currency base. Up until the 1940's, everything was pounds sterling. And even then, it probably wasn't until the 1960's that the pound was passe.

Re:This isn't just about the Bush cabal! (4, Interesting)

dada21 (163177) | more than 8 years ago | (#14651837)

Actually, you are very close to being correct in refuting my "since 1913" idea, but I have been spending a LOT of time lately reading up on how the US helped prop up the Sterling for decades and it seems that they/we may have done so in order to help it crash and be replaced. I'm hoping that I'll have performed enough research to back it up in the next few months -- which is why I am holding to the theory.

Re:This isn't just about the Bush cabal! (3, Insightful)

diamondsw (685967) | more than 8 years ago | (#14651894)

You are a pawn of the fantasies inside your head.

"Never ascribe to malice, that which can be explained by incompetence" [quotedb.com] , or even apply Occam's Razor [wikipedia.org] . None of this makes sense compared to the simple truth that some people are nasty and have their own agenda; there is no overarching conspiracy across the generations. Or shall we start discussing the New World Order [wikipedia.org] ?

This is what is truly damaging - those who should be helping the fight instead damage it by acting like crackpots. How do you expect to effect any change if unable to convince others?

Re:This isn't just about the Bush cabal! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14652223)

my father was ex-military and he said back in '98 or so that within the next 4 years we'd be at war with saddam, or have a conflict in the middle east. The military, and the govt had plans to finish what had been started. He also mentioned how in the next 20 years we'd see a shift in civil rights. and he wouldnt be around to see it, but he said I would.

he was right on all accounts sad to say.

Yawn... (2, Insightful)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 8 years ago | (#14651406)

a) old news

b) anyone with two neurons to rub together should have figured this out before the shooting started

c) the public at large isn't going to get outraged about this (or anything else) unless gas prices go back up to $3/gal

Re:Yawn... (1)

drjzzz (150299) | more than 8 years ago | (#14651675)

Such cynicism is well justified by experience, especially the last few years.
Why didn't anyone say "send the inspectors to check out the claims"? This is what I find most curious and suspicious. We had well qualified inspectors with full access without warning to the entire country. Yet Powell could show pictures and nobody asked what happened when the inspectors arrived.

Re:Yawn... (3, Interesting)

wonkavader (605434) | more than 8 years ago | (#14651784)

b) anyone with two neurons to rub together should have figured this out before the shooting started

I have to agree. And yet, congress voted for it and the unwashed public thought it was on the level. By what this guy says, Colin Powell thought it was on the level. What happened? Does the average American actaully not have the two neuron minimum?

The fact that everyone in congress voted for it, and that many of those guys were not stupid enough to believe it wasn't a hoax, suggests that there would be plenty of recriminations to go around. The legislative branch will actively squelch this.

c) the public at large isn't going to get outraged about this (or anything else) unless gas prices go back up to $3/gal

No, $2.50 was enough. The speed that this sort of thing will move depends exactly on the price of gas, but $3 ain't the tipping point, $3's just the acceleration point. But you're right, at $3 it would move fast. As is, it'll be a big part of the eventual pullout shenanigans.

Re:Yawn... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14652055)

the public at large isn't going to get outraged about this (or anything else) unless gas prices go back up to $3/gal

Sad to say, probably not even then. Even with fuel prices around $3/gal, the price of car insurance is still several times higher, as are my car payments (I'm at my first job, and I got a short loan to buy a car I wouldn't have otherwise been able to afford for 3 months with my just-out-of-school cash).

At $3/gal, it will be annoying, but you won't see any real action. As Peter said, "This is *America*".

When gas reaches $4 or $5/gal, you'll see action: people will ask their representatives to subsidize the petroleum industry more so they don't feel like they're paying as much.

I've seen nothing to lead me to believe that anything will stop America from its oil guzzling until it actually comes close to running out.

Fourth estate? (4, Insightful)

Zelet (515452) | more than 8 years ago | (#14651418)

It's too bad that there are no news organizations left that do any kind of investigative reporting. It would be nice to have this guy's claims analyzed by a third party. Oh well, I guess profits are more important than protecting the People of the US from their government.

Re:Fourth estate? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14651481)

It's too bad that there are no news organizations left that do any kind of investigative reporting.

Wasn't this allready clear when they supported the war in the first place?

Re:Fourth estate? (1)

Zelet (515452) | more than 8 years ago | (#14651522)

Well... new war == new ratings == more money for the news stations.

I'm almost paranoid enough to think that the news channels were really hoping for a new war to boost their ratings. Thats why there is no left-wing media bias. There is just a "we want money no matter what" bias. Fox news is biased because that slant works for their market and thus brings them more money.

Re:Fourth estate? (2, Insightful)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 8 years ago | (#14651701)

As I recall, Fox News isn't all that biased.

Slashdot had an article about the political leanings of various news shows a while back.

My recollection is that Fox News provides a slightly to the right viewpoint, what really pulls the entire station to the far right is the Opinion shows masquerading as news. Bill O'Reilley, Hannity & Colmes, etc.

Anyways, if you're far to the left, the media is biased to the right. If you're far to the right, the media is biased to the left.

Re:Fourth estate? (4, Insightful)

TheOldFart (578597) | more than 8 years ago | (#14652075)

The parent exposes a point beyond political leanings. It makes sense. It's not about left or right rather, it is about demographics and ratings. The "news" are packaged to a demographic that interests advertisers, the so called 18-35 male audience. This is a tough crowd to attract given the variety of "entertainment" options available. In order to "sell" the news, it must be made entertaining and easy to consume. The antithesis of well researched investigative reporting.

If you bring a piece of information that makes one side or the other "bad", you are making half of your audience to reach for the remote. That's bad for ratings. Instead you bring two people of opposing views and let them talk about without ever reaching a conclusion.

Re:Fourth estate? (2, Insightful)

hey! (33014) | more than 8 years ago | (#14651529)

Oh well, I guess profits are more important than protecting the People of the US from their government.

Ah, but the restraint on media ownership rules that got us to this point were a restraint on freedom. The fact that this destroyed the institution of independent journalism is an unfortunate side effect. The fact that the market doesn't provide the people with the institutions necessary for freedom is tautological proof they don't want freedom.

Old News (-1, Troll)

Eli Gottlieb (917758) | more than 8 years ago | (#14651464)

We all know the case for war was bullshit! That's why we voted!

So what, is this guy running for something? Gearing up to run for something? Why reiterate such an old claim now?

Re:Old News (0, Redundant)

corbettw (214229) | more than 8 years ago | (#14651546)

We all know the case for war was bullshit! That's why we voted!

If "we all" knew that, then why did Bush get re-elected?

Re:Old News (0, Troll)

Eli Gottlieb (917758) | more than 8 years ago | (#14651640)

By "we all" I meant Slashdot.

The other reason Bush got re-elected was because he cheated again. You know, knock a few blacks off the rolls, call in favors from his friends at Diebold, that sort of thing.

Re:Old News (1)

east coast (590680) | more than 8 years ago | (#14651852)

If "we all" knew that, then why did Bush get re-elected?

You know, over 70% of all Americans supported the invasion on the evening of. To suddenly drop support now is not only morally wrong but also poltically dangerous. For all of you who just simply want to pull troops today just imagine if a country with the resources of Iraq becomes the next Afganistan.

I don't think most rational humans want to see Iraq become a terrorist state. This is why we need to stay the course at this point and why playing politics with the Iraqi war is going to do more damage than good to a potential presidential canidate.

If you don't think this is true then you tell me why Democrats voted against Kerry in droves... The man changed his possition on Iraq a half dozen times, people don't want that.

Re:Old News (1)

corbettw (214229) | more than 8 years ago | (#14652012)

For all of you who just simply want to pull troops today just imagine if a country with the resources of Iraq becomes the next Afganistan.

See my other post on this topic [slashdot.org] to see what I think of withdrawing. But for an example of the kind of country you're describing, there already is one, and it borders both Iraq and Afghanistan.

why did Bush get re-elected? (1)

shrubya (570356) | more than 8 years ago | (#14651903)

  1. Look out, terrorists!
  2. Look out, monogamous gays!
  3. The Democratic Party is incompetent, spineless, and worse than useless. Besides, everyone knows that a vote for Democrats is a vote for gay terrorists.

That about covers it.

This is not news. (4, Insightful)

Joey Vegetables (686525) | more than 8 years ago | (#14651465)

War is almost always a hoax, and war other than in self-defense always is.

The only just reason for war is because the alternative would be even worse - that by not going to war we would have doomed even more people to slavery or death. That is almost never the case.

It clearly was not the case here, even if every allegation made against Hussein had been true, although most of them were not. The hypothetical murder of some relatively small number (hundreds or thousands) of people, via a terrorist attack Hussein had little reason and less ability to commit, would not justify the actual murder of hundreds of thousands or millions (keep in mind the long-term effects of depleted uranium, not just on Iraqis, but on US forces as well).

This war and the mindless support US citizens have given it will go down as one of the greatest crimes of modern history, and those who knowingly support it deserve at least as bad as what is coming to them, and probably worse.

But, as is almost always true of almost every war, the innocent - including those in the US - will suffer far, far more.

That of course is one of the many good reasons not to start one.

Re:This is not news. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14651724)

keep in mind the long-term effects of depleted uranium, not just on Iraqis, but on US forces as well)

It's depleted uranium. What long term effects? If you're really worried about DU, how about getting the non-depleted uranium [ornl.gov] out of our Coal smokestacks?

I suppose next you're going to tell us that 747s shouldn't use DU beams to maintain structural integrity and airplane balance. I mean, it might be TEH R4D104CT1V3, D000Dzz! Run for the hills! Don't fly, drive, go outside, inside, DOOD LOOK THE HELL OUT FOR EVERYTHING! Oh, and please support the petition to outlaw Dihydrogen Monoxide [dhmo.org] .

Pathetic.

Re:This is not news. (1)

Joey Vegetables (686525) | more than 8 years ago | (#14651820)

It's depleted uranium. What long term effects? If you're really worried about DU, how about getting the non-depleted uranium out of our Coal smokestacks?

That's pretty nasty garbage too, but really not comparable. Besides, one wrong cannot justify another.

Re:This is not news. (1)

LordKazan (558383) | more than 8 years ago | (#14651840)

Hey idiot - DU isn't dangerous because of it's radiological properties - it's dangerous as a powder/dust because of it's CHEMICAL properties - it is an [extremely] heavy metal.

It's chemical properties will kill you long long long before it's alpha radiation decay chain can touch you.

Good thing you chose to troll as an AC because otherwise everyone would know who you really are and "MORON" would become attached to your name.

Re:This is not news. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14652043)

Because all those other chemicals and heavy metals used in war machines are so much better for you, right? What makes DU so special that it's singled out? Answer: Nothing. Except for the fears over its - practically nonexistant - radiological properties.

The plain and simple fact is, war does ecological damage. DU does no more damage than any other chemical or metal. Them's the breaks.

Re:This is not news. (1)

Highrollr (625006) | more than 8 years ago | (#14651760)

This war and the mindless support US citizens have given it

Mindless support? Do you own a TV that gets any channels besides Fox?

Re:This is not news. (1)

Joey Vegetables (686525) | more than 8 years ago | (#14651853)

I do not watch broadcast or cable TV.

Unfortunately most of my family, friends, cow-orkers, etc. do, and most of them are as blindly pro-war as Bush himself.

Re:This is not news. (2, Insightful)

dc29A (636871) | more than 8 years ago | (#14651886)

Iraq war had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda nor WMDs. It was all about oil (for long term goals) and geo-political manipulation for short term (infuse democracy and al in the region). I am willing to bet that if there was no oil in Iraq, Saddam would be still alive and in power. The US, so hopelessly addicted to oil, needed to make sure that the vast iraqi oil fields don't fall into the hands of their second addiction: China.

It will be very ironic to see when the US is going to go begging to other nations to help them invade Iran, because that's the next war. Unfortunately, when that comes, we are going to have WMDs and lot of western countries who supported the US will probably refuse this time around.

Re:This is not news. (4, Interesting)

Joey Vegetables (686525) | more than 8 years ago | (#14651978)

It was all about oil (for long term goals)

I think that's so but in a very roundabout way . . . the war clearly and predictably resulted in loss of short-term production, and the upcoming Iran war will even more so; but, if the Empire can manage to build bases in the region, that will help it control access to oil to some of its potential rivals over the next century (China, Russia, India, possibly the EU).

So there is a long-term benefit to the Empire, but one paid for by the loss of countless innocent lives. That in my mind makes it completely unjustifiable. But, besides that, it also means these nations will be forced to choose between imperial control of resources they desperately need for their own continued survival, or war - and probably the first large-scale war since WW2 - in order to attempt to liberate them.

There are tough times ahead.

Re:This is not news. (1)

e1618978 (598967) | more than 8 years ago | (#14652039)

Saddam Hussein killed 17,000 people per year for 25 years.
Sanctions against Iraq killed 50,000 people per year for 10 years.

We have killed 70,000 people per year since we got there, roughly
equal to the number that would have been killed if we had not gone
to war. It is reasonable to assume that fewer and fewer people will
be killed there as time goes on from now, so the end result is that
more people would have died had we not gone to war.

They would have been different people dying, though, a lot more Kurds
and Shia, and a lot less Sunnis than are dying now.

Flamboyant Posturing (1, Insightful)

TiggertheMad (556308) | more than 8 years ago | (#14652151)

This war and the mindless support US citizens have given it will go down as one of the greatest crimes of modern history, and those who knowingly support it deserve at least as bad as what is coming to them, and probably worse.

"One of the Greatest Crimes of Modern History?" Please. I dislike the Bush administration and their idiotic excuses for invading Iraq, but president Jr. isn't even smart enough to commit an attrocity on the level to warrant such a description.

Let's not taint the discussion buy suggesting that the war in Iraq is a criminal enterprise on the level of Hitler, Stallin, Pol Pot, or other individuals who systematically spread terror and death in their wake. It isn't something like the apartite movement of wide spread supression. Nor does it relate to the mass organized genocide that occured in the balkans or Africa in the last decade.

I'm not defending president Jr.'s actions in any way. But let's keep the conversation rational. He is stupid, but he isn't evil.

But Tonight on Fox... (5, Funny)

RobotRunAmok (595286) | more than 8 years ago | (#14651483)

...there'll be an interview with another crew-cut dude with a dot-mil e-mail address, not retired, who'll say the first dude had an axe to grind and is totally wrong. And he'll be right. And the first guy will have been right, too, well, mostly...

Yeah, but Fox is slanted.

Wait, I thought it was PBS that was slanted.

Hillary's moving to the right!!

But Condi's a snappier dresser.

Act before midnight tonight, and we'll throw in a debate on global warming!

Step Right Up! Choose yer channel, make yer choice!

(Get away from me, Mod, ya bother me...)

Grounds for impeachment? (3, Insightful)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 8 years ago | (#14651509)

So is this enough for an impeachment hearing? People go to jail for murder with less evidence that we have about Bush, Clinton, and Bush, Sr. Do we have enough for Congress to begin a real case? Or is this just dreaming because not enough people in Congress have the balls to go through with it?

Impeachment (5, Insightful)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 8 years ago | (#14652113)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment [wikipedia.org]
The procedure is in two steps. The House of Representatives must first pass "articles of impeachment" by a simple majority. The articles of impeachment constitute the formal allegations. Upon their passage, the defendant has been "impeached."

Next, the Senate tries the accused. In the case of the impeachment of a President, the Chief Justice of the United States presides over the proceedings. Otherwise, the Vice President, in his capacity of President of the Senate, or the President pro tempore of the Senate presides. This would include the impeachment of the Vice President him- or herself. In order to convict the accused, a two-thirds majority of the senators present is required.
To summarize: President Bush is not going to get impeached unless more Congressmen vote for it, than against it.

The reason Clinton got impeached for parsing words, is because the Republicans controlled Congress & they managed to get Articles of Impeachment passed. The Impeachment died in the Senate... because the Republicans couldn't convince 75% of the Senators that it was a good idea.

Poor Colin Powell (5, Insightful)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 8 years ago | (#14651531)

I really feel bad for him.

He should have either run for President or gotten out after Clinton and not come back.

Bush & Cheney took all the credibility he had built up and wasted it by sending him to the U.N. to tell fairytales.

You can read the speech here [cnn.com] but it isn't really worth doing, as so many of the facts provided in that speech have been proven false and were apparently known to be false at the time the speech was given.

Re: Poor Colin Powell (5, Insightful)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 8 years ago | (#14651637)

> I really feel bad for him.

I detest him for not having the moral fiber to resign.

Re: Poor Colin Powell (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14651908)

Why? Isn't it better to remain in a position of influence and still hope to have a moderating effect than to give up that position of influence and have a real puppet installed?

Re: Poor Colin Powell (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14651921)

...didn't he resign? Or was it technically someting else?

I still have the baseless opinion that Colin Powell is a good guy who got mixed in with the wrong crowd, but his son's antics with the FCC really make me wonder.

Re: Poor Colin Powell (1)

damsa (840364) | more than 8 years ago | (#14651986)

Powell isn't really a good guy, look at the coverups in Vietnam and war crimes in the first Iraq war. But among the bad guys, he was the least bad guy.

Re: Poor Colin Powell (4, Insightful)

blamanj (253811) | more than 8 years ago | (#14651972)

I wouldn't say I detest him for not resigning, but it certainly lowered my opinion of him. I'm sure his rationalization was the "Google defense", we can do more inside than outside, but in fact in his case it's demonstrably false.

Inside, he proved nearly ineffective ungainst the Rumsfield/Cheney "cabal". By resigning, he would have cast an extremely bright light on the shadowy claims of Bush & co, he would have staked out a clear place for Republicans who don't blindly follow the party line, and he would have been an extremely popular presidential candidate, should he have chosen to run,

Wow, this is news? (1)

agent dero (680753) | more than 8 years ago | (#14651581)

I for one, am shocked....awed even!

I thought it was pretty obvious that the american public was hood-winked (as it were) with this?

(How it's not an impeachable offense is beyond me)

News For Nerds? (1, Insightful)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 8 years ago | (#14651641)

Would someone please explain to me what this is doing on Slashdot?

Re:News For Nerds? (2, Insightful)

Yosho (135835) | more than 8 years ago | (#14651813)

Did you miss the "stuff that matters" part?

Please keep in mind that it doesn't say "stuff that matters to ObsessiveMathsFreak". If you don't want political news, go into your preferences and turn it off.

Re:News For Nerds? (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 8 years ago | (#14651818)

Because nerds have to live in the real world too, although we would often like to ignore the fact (or move to the Google moon base).

Re:News For Nerds? (1)

botlrokit (244504) | more than 8 years ago | (#14651839)

Col. Lawrence B. Wilkerson beta tests graphics cards now for nVidia, between gigs as consultant on Fox. His opinion on triangles and rasters is highly respected, so step off the man while he weighs in on a little off-topic speeching between reboots.

Re:News For Nerds? (1)

stienman (51024) | more than 8 years ago | (#14651866)

Would someone please explain to me what this is doing on Slashdot?

Hey! You! Get back in line!

-Adam

Mod article "Flaimbait:" (1, Insightful)

MrLogic17 (233498) | more than 8 years ago | (#14651666)

Yet another anti-Iraq war person says there wasn't grounds for entering war.
Yet more pro-Iraq war people disagree.

Film at 11.

Re:Mod article "Flaimbait:" (1)

Jafafa Hots (580169) | more than 8 years ago | (#14652084)

um, guess again, sparky - pro-war people are in the minority. Most americans say it was a mistake and that we were mislead.

He didn't *know* it was a hoax... apparently. (4, Insightful)

Nato_Uno (34428) | more than 8 years ago | (#14651672)

Note that he claims to not have *known* that it was a hoax at the time that he participated and that some of his superiors were in the same boat.

I suspect this would be the likely defense if there *were* an investigation (which I don't expect) - "It wasn't *me* - I had no idea!"

The part that I find to be *more* damning is where he lists the items that the "intelligence community" *failed* to predict - fall of the Soviet Union, etc. The implication seems to be that the entire system is so flawed that preventing "hoaxes" like this in future will be difficult because it's almost impossible to know what is and is not true and whether or not you have all the data.

He's able to label the Iraq situation as a hoax only in *hindsight*, as he examines data not available to him at the time. This seems similar to the analyses done after 9/11 where there were suggestions (again, in hindsight) that the "intelligence community" should have known and been able to prevent 9/11 from happening. Hindsight's 20/20, after all...

Wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14651802)

Being the person that wrote the original article that the British dossier plagerized, I knew the case was false and based on outdated data. However, I was told at the time that the Government had data that we in the academic community did not have. No matter how loudly people like me spoke, everyone had jumped onto the WMD bandwagon. Although I can say that we got the last laugh, it is a morbid thought. Amazing isn't it?

Re:Wrong (1)

Nato_Uno (34428) | more than 8 years ago | (#14651905)

Congratulations for writing a report that was plaigarized by the "intelligence community." I'm confused why you titled your response "Wrong", though. As far as I can tell you're not asserting that TFA's author *did* know it was a hoax beforehand, which is my assertion. What part of what I wrote do you consider to be wrong?

Lack of responsibility (5, Interesting)

antv (1425) | more than 8 years ago | (#14651833)

The problem is that politicians could lie and get away with it. Before the war Bush & Co were pretending that we were in danger from Iraq, and now that they've been proven wrong no one called them on the original claims. If I call the police and falsely claim there's a robbery when there isn't, I will be fined for false call. Bush made a false call which caused 2,000+ Americans and unknown number of Iraqis to die - and he just got away with it.

We need some sort of accountability system that would force politicians to pay for their mistakes. Require them to publicly estimate cost of war and take all outstanding costs from their personal bank accounts. Wolfowitz estimated war to cost around half a billion, and so far we ended up with more than $200 billion (yes, two hundreen billion US dollars) of extra costs. If Bush & Co were forced to pay all outstanding costs, they would've estimated the cost of war honestly, and people wouldn't be misled into supporting war.

Same thing for human cost. Require pro-war politicians to gather signatures. It's way too easy to say "I support a war" while sitting at home in front of TV. Make a law that starting a war would require million or so legally binding signatures from people to cover in case we run out of troops. There's always so many vocal pro-war supporters, but when it comes to actually fighting the war we always seem to run out of people. Make war supporters actually carry the cost of war, and they will actually start using their brains first.

The right war for the wrong reasons (4, Insightful)

JSBiff (87824) | more than 8 years ago | (#14651858)

I've personally always fealt this was the right war, but for the wrong reasons. The Bush administration needed to come up with some reasons to go to war, but they didn't want to admit the truth of why, so they made up these cock-and-bull stories.

      I can't really speak to what the Bush administrations true motives were. I suspect, that, mostly, Bush did think that Saddam Hussein was a growing threat to the US and the Western World, and didn't want to give him any chance to acquire any more WMD than he had. Maybe they sexed up the intelligence (which, btw, if they did do, I don't condone).

      Why do I feel this was the right war? Perhaps my limited knowledge of history is incorrect, but, it is my current understanding that Europe and the US have played 'chess' with the Middle East for most of the 20th century, and that, to a large extent, Saddam Hussein was in power in Iraq because earlier administrations had propped him up. The U.S. has, purportedly, done some very bad things in the region, including: Iran had, at one time, a democratic government. The CIA apparently helped overthrow the democratic government and install a dictator (I don't know that he was a *bad* dictator per se, but still), which lead to the Iranian revolution which installed the current Theocracy we all know and love. It my understanding that the US then propped up Saddam Hussein as a sort of first-line-of-defense against Iran.

      Personally, I feel America needs to give the middle east an apology for so much meddling, and get the hell out of their business. But, alas, Saddam Hussein was part of that meddling. And so, to try to get things somewhat 'right' before leaving, we are forced to meddle some more. And that, I feel, is the truest and best justification for the current actions in Iraq. To turn over the future of Iraq to the Iraqi people. As for Iran, as much as I don't like the current government (espcially the hate-mongering, former-terrorist president of Iran) it should also be recognized that, for to some extent, the current government of Iran represents the people of Iran, and outside of defending ourselves against them, we need to let their politics run their own course.

Of course, I may be completely wrong. I can only go by the history that I have learned, and it is within possibility that the history I've been taught is either completely wrong, or incomplete in some critical way.

The sad thing is though, that what history will likely remember is that we entered into this action on bad intelligence and bull-crap stories from Bush & Cheney, LLP. And, because we entered into it the wrong way, with the wrong communication to the Iraqi people, and the rest of the Muslim world, it will probably have the wrong outcome - forcing us to meddle further in Middle Eastern affairs.

apology? (1)

Jafafa Hots (580169) | more than 8 years ago | (#14652130)

What kind of an apology is this? For something to be an apology, doesn't the person being apologized to have to SEE it as an apology rather than as further insult?

"I'm sorry for calling you fat - I really meant 'Reubenesque.'"

"Sorry for punching you in the face - next time I'll aim for your gut."

Very, very interesting (5, Insightful)

corbettw (214229) | more than 8 years ago | (#14651928)

First let me say, I'm a Bush supporter. I'm in the Reserves, and I participated in Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). I was lucky enough to be 1500 miles from the front lines, unlike the rest of my unit, but in any event I was there and I've got the tee-shirt to prove it. When the war first started, I was completely in favor of it. Today, I don't regret that we went in at all, and think in the long run the Iraqi people (and by extension the rest of the Middle East) will be much better off with a participatory democracy than living under the heel of a thug.

Having said all that, it's becoming more and more worrisome to me the degree to which the administration apparently ignored or possibly fabricated evidence. I remember saying at the time that it was a fool's errand to use WMD and/or terrorism as the reason to go to war, and that it seemed more like slick marketing than actual strategery. We had plenty of reasons to go in, and none of them had anything to do with WMDs or terrorism. Like the fact that the Iraqi forces habitually fired on US and UK aircraft patrolling the UN mandated No Fly Zones (considering that just prior to the war, I was working in the Turkish command center that controlled the Northern No Fly Zone and had friends and, literally, family flying over Iraq, yeah, I kinda took it personally).

But apparently someone, somewhere, decided that overt acts of aggression in violation of a cease-fire agreement weren't sufficient reason to justify reopening hostilities. So they decided to use weak or non-existant evidence to justify it, instead. Stupid. Just fucking stupid.

So now here we are, not-quite-three years later. We've spent billions of dollars, have hundreds of thousands of troops on the ground, and have thousands of war dead. What's the solution? Well, on the right you have people saying "It wasn't a lie, it was just a mistake." Well, when it comes to something of this magnitude, does it really matter if the root was incompetence or malfeasance? Sure, maybe from a criminal point of view (for instance, I'm not convinced there's a case for impeachment here). But not a whom-do-you-trust-to-run-the-country point of view.

Then on the left we have people like Murtha and Kennedy screaming that we should leave, RIGHT NOW GODDAMNIT!!! That's just insane, we can't leave the Iraqis in a worse position than we found them. That would be like walking away from a car stuck underwater with a woman trapped inside. I mean, what kind of man does that?

So here's what I want to see from politicians: be willing to say "Looks like we screwed up. We completely apologize to the Iraqi people and ask that you forigive us. We promise, to our citizens and the world, that we'll never again invade another country without an individual declaration of war passed by the Congress, ensuring that there will be a full debate before we, as a nation, take the lives of other human beings. We also promise that, now that we're in Iraq, we need to do right by the Iraqis and help them fix all the problems we caused. To that end, we'll follow the policies implemented by the Iraqi National Congress, and be willing to lend whatever assistance they request of us.[1]" Any politician who can say that, consistently, with a straight face, would get my vote.

[1] I know this would be effectively giving the Iraqi government a blank check, but I think that would be worth it to gain some much needed good will.

It's Still Happening (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14651962)

The Bush administration continues to present "facts" that are carefully selected to support their policy decisions. Because they control all three branches of government, there is no one within the government that can challenge these "facts". Unless the news media grow a pair and start challenging the Bush administration's "facts" we will just have more of the same.

Here are some current "facts" from the Bush administration that are being accepted without question by the media and most of the US population:

If we withdraw from Iraq the terrorists will win.

This statement seems to imply that unless the USA maintains 100,000+ troops in Iraq for many years then the insurgents will overrun Iraq and set up Bin Laden as a dictator of Iraq. This is obviously false at a number of levels. At a most basic level, the insurgents lack the capability to defeat the Shiite militias. In the broader picture, even if the USA sets up a stable democracy after many year of occupation, there is no guarantee that the Iraqi people will not elect a government with strong ties to organizations that the USA considers to be terrorist organizations. Whether it is a good idea for the USA to maintain substantial trooop levels in Iraq for many years to come is unclear without substantial impartial detailed study. If these studies have been done at all, the results have certainly not been presented to the American people. Instead, we are merely given some simplistic message about how the terrorists will win unless we do what the Bush administration wants.

Social security is broken.

The way social security works is that people who are working pay into the system and that money is used to pay benefits for people who are retired. Strictly speaking, it's not possible for the system to break. The government just transfers the money that is collected from the workers to those receiving retirement benefits. In order to cushion the effect of the baby boom generation, however, the government was collecting more than it was paying out. The problem is that the rest of the government started borrowing against this surplus and now the Bush administration is looking to avoid having to pay it back. Whether the current system is optimal is certainly open to debate but the idea that the system is "broken" is obviously false.

The Bush administrion did nothing illegal in order the NSA to listen in on American phone conversations

From the Bill of Rights in the US constitution:

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I'm not a constitutional scholar but that seems to rather clearly state that some kind of warrant is required. Maybe there's a loop hole and maybe there isn't but it is certainly not factual to blatantly assert that it is legal for the US government to listen in on American phone conversations without a warrant.

It is news... after all (1)

Xepherys2 (174396) | more than 8 years ago | (#14652007)

First, to the person who asked why this was on /. ... well, because it's NEWS, first of all, and because if the only thing you know about are circuit boards and frames per second, how the hell are the geeks supposed to take over the world someday? It's good to be well rounded my translucent-fleshed friend.

Secondly, it is true that the intelligence community cannot ever be 100% certain it is right or wrong or does, in fact, have all the data. It's never been pushed as a 100% concept that I am aware of. Intelligence is doomed to fail, but not always. Why is this concept difficult for some people to understand?

I knew it was a sham all along (4, Interesting)

plopez (54068) | more than 8 years ago | (#14652134)

Building WMDs on any large scale is a HUGE undertaking. Sure, anyone with a little knowledge can cook up poison gas in their bath tub but to make it on a military scale is very complex you need:
1) Chemical plants (or bio incubator sites) to make tons of the stuff.
2) Railrods or fleets of trucks to bring in precursor chemicals.
3) A source for the precusros, either from overseas or from plants in country.
4) Then you have to develop some sort of delivery system, shells, bombs, planes, boats etc.
5) You need thousands of people to support the operation: scientists, engineers, security people, administrative people etc.
6) Power plants to run the various factories.
7) Then you ned to train people in use of the delivery system.

During WWII the Germans tried to proect ahd hide some of their plants in caves. The locations were usually easy to spot due to the huge infrastructure needed. And even though many of the factories were deep enough not to be damaged by bombs, many of them could effectively be shut down by cutting off access to power or the transportation net. And factor in that there were UN inspectors on the ground as well as electronic survelliance, and the possibility of Sadam developing stockpiles of wepaons on the sly becomes slim to none.

We were definitely lied to.

And this has what to do with technology...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14652170)

Ah, never mind that. LeftDot marches on!

That's a pretty good hoax then (4, Insightful)

melted (227442) | more than 8 years ago | (#14652204)

Cost us $400B in direct losses and 1000+ lives so far with no end in sight. Some of that $400B goes to companies closely affiliated with Bush and Cheney. Bush gets blanket immunity from impeachment under the guise of "war on terror", domestic economy goes down the shitter, international relations follow, constitutional rights are infringed upon... Sure beats Clinton screwing an intern. Why was Clinton impeached and this fella is still in the office like nothing happened?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...