Powell Aide Says Case for War a 'Hoax' 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.
Welcome to the real world guys. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Welcome to the real world guys. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Welcome to the real world guys. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Welcome to the real world guys. (Score:5, Interesting)
Depends on how you define ineffective. Opium production came out of a slump after the attacks.
Seriously, I almost agree that the attack on Afghanistan could be deemed legitimate. I have no conflicting evidence.
Any person that can think and read that does not believe that the "War on Terror" and the Iraq war are made up is a moron. I flipped off Rumsfeld the other day while watching TV in a store. He was crying wolf again about the "War on Terror".
Just last week or so, a tunnel was discovered that went from Mexico to the US. It was 2400 feet long, had a cement floor, took over a year to build, and some chump got caught with 1 ton of Mexican swag.
Now, that was one operation. I forget the estimated tonnage of pot that comes from British Columbia every year (not much better than Mexican swag, but I digress). But its a bunch.
Oh, and sometimes people bring in tons of cocaine. And other stuff.
Now, how difficult would it be to replace the multi-ton cargo with say a few tons of explosives, poisons, or whatever nasty stuff a "terrorist" can think of? Zero.
The "War on Terror" is such a joke, that a few weeks ago, CNN broadcasted that there were "confirmed" bin Laden tapes saying that he was planning to attack the US or something. Read the disinformation here: http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/01/19/binladen.tape/ [cnn.com]
Nothing happened. No response. The terror "threat level" did not raise up from "elevated" than it has in years. Remember that Bush used to jack up the terror threat level during his reelection campaign for the fun of it.
The American people are being lied to and they simply accept it.
There is nothing you can do to stop a well funded suicidally driven person. Period.
Just ask Ireland when they really had issues with terrorism.
I always get modded all over the place with posts like this from insightful, informative, overrated, and flamebait. So here we go again.
The war in Iraq is about profit, inflation prevention, and basic economics. Or was it really about WMDs? Or was it really for 9/11/01? Well, WMDs were a farce, and Saddam didn't have anything to do with the plane thing.
Oh, but North Korea is next, right?
Re:Welcome to the real world guys. (Score:3, Insightful)
Well... you make an interesting point, but the difference between the two cargos is clear. Any operation like the Mexican tunnel you talk about cannot be the product of one individual, or even a handful of like-minded individuals. It's going to be the result of a concerted effort of something like an organized drug cartel. In theory I guess it'
Re:Welcome to the real world guys. (Score:5, Insightful)
They don't have to. All they have to do is pay the guys who already have the smuggling apparatus in place to move their cargo.
Re:Welcome to the real world guys. (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it'll be Iran if anyone.
N. Korea is effectively inviolate because any military action would result in about a zillion artillery rounds landing on Seoul [miis.edu]. 10+ million people live in Seoul. The mass carnage would never be tolerated and evacuation of the city is unfeasible.
Re:Welcome to the real world guys. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's based on the false premise that the number of terrorists is somehow predetermined and fixed, regardless of what you do (and that you therefore preferably keep them busy as far away from you as possible). That is not true.
Doing "nothing" is better than doing things which as main consequence have that more people become so desperate that they are willing to blow themselves up. You do not solve the problem of terrorism by creating more torn apart families, torturing family members, locking up family members without due process, bombing villages because there might be some terrorist in a building etc.
Always remember that everyone that dies had family and friends. And every disturbance to the social cohesion and structures takes away "civilisation" so to speak (just look at some of the things which happended in New Orleans after Katrina to see what happens if our thin layer of civilisation disappears because people are completely disoriented and desperate when their social structures and networks are gone or disfigured).
Maybe in some way everyone is a potential terrorist, but it takes a whole lot of work before someone gets as far to be willing to blow himself up. People don't blow themselves up because they and their family are living a happy life and feel content and unthreatened. And also not because they are jealous, or merely annoyed, or even angry.
Somewhere something has to break, you have to become mentally unstable (some people are so from birth of course, but I like to think this is a small minority, usually termed psychopaths or sociopaths).
The main criticism on the "war on terror" is that the way it's being waged it only creates more terrorists. That's independent of whether or not you stand by recognising Israel as an independent state (the UN recognised it, that's not some purely Western or US position).
The Israel-Palestina case is very important and delicate (and both sides have committed countless atrocities), but the solution to that problem is not the War on Terror, nor is stopping this War on Terror (at least in its current form) a capitulation to terrorists (at most it would a capitulation to rational decision making: it doesn't work, it makes things worse, so scrap it).
It almost seems like desperation carries it forward: we have no idea what else to do and we cannot do nothing, so lets just go on making things worse, because at least then we have the feeling we tried. That's a position of weakness, not of strength. Of course, there are also people who honestly believe the current approach is the right/best one, but you do not seem to be one of them.
The least you can do is not do things which only make the terrorists stronger. The War on Terror as it is, is trying to put out a diesel fire with water. If you do not have a better approach than that, just letting it burn is a whole lot more effective.
I'm not
Re:How to stop a suicide terrorist (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Welcome to the real world guys. (Score:5, Insightful)
If there are prizes for right wing lunacy, then you deserve one.
You know, things happen for a reason [...] But all the Clinton supporters STILL will not face this fact
I think that there is a fairly straightforward reason why most people get blowjobs...when you've had one perhaps you'll understand why. I'll give you a clue: it has nothing to do with what Bush is doing. Indeed, I honestly believe that if Bush got a few more blowjobs, we'd all be better off.
Re:Welcome to the real world guys. (Score:5, Informative)
"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?"
He's talking about the half that funded and armed al qaeda to fight the soviets. Funding terrorist groups was the norm all in the name of fighting the cold war.
The clinton bombings were targeted at osama: http://www.cnn.com/US/9808/20/us.strikes.01/ [cnn.com]
Re:Welcome to the real world guys. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Welcome to the real world guys. (Score:5, Interesting)
In a way- according to the same PBS program that presented the interview, inspection crews were able to inspect 100% of the sites listed by the intelligence agencies, and were only truly booted out by the US government 48 hours previous to the second invasion. EVERY single one of those reports showed no WMDs. And the Germans had already told Cheney personally that Curveball's reports were not reliable.
All of this happened prior to Powell's speech- so I guess the real question was why the Administration was feeding known false information to the Secretary of Defense. The "hoax" label comes not from me- but from Powell's aide, who feels abused and defrauded by our government.
Re:Welcome to the real world guys. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Welcome to the real world guys. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What difference does it make (Score:5, Informative)
I don't know what you remember, but the facts show there was a big difference.
Re:These wars have been planned for a long time (Score:4, Funny)
Some statements that helped start the Iraq war (Score:3, Informative)
February 1, 1998: "We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction." - US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright
February 4, 1998: "One
Re:Some statements that helped start the Iraq war (Score:5, Insightful)
that isn't to say that some dems didn't speak of WMD programs in iraq after then, but just realize that using those statements from 1998 is about as disingenuous as using quotes from 1945 to 'prove' that the democrats thought germany was a threat to the US in 1973.
Re:Some statements that helped start the Iraq war (Score:4, Interesting)
Though it would have played out much betterif Clinton *had* invaded Iraq -- there might actually be a stable democracy there right now. Clinton did a great job in the former Yugoslavia, with no combat casualties.
Hell, I don't know.
Re:Welcome to the real world guys. (Score:5, Insightful)
Marked? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Marked? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Marked? (Score:5, Funny)
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? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Marked? (Score:3, Interesting)
Fixed that for you.
Re:Marked? (Score:5, Funny)
They used a radio button in the GUI.
Re:Marked? (Score:3, Insightful)
The Hills are Alive With the Sound of Gunfire (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
"Defense" Department is offensive in nature (Score:4, Insightful)
The primary example of this is the aircraft carrier and its associated air power elements, which allows the US to attack any target in the world within a week if not a day. This advantage subjugates any defenses of a target country.
ICBMs are likewise designed for intimidation and aggression. Whereas the soviet-era ICBM standoff was defense by mutual destruction, now our ICBMs threaten any country not armed with similar capability with instantaneous death.
Our long-range bomber fleet is likewise a power projection (offensive) unit, for the delivery of bombs over distances thousands of miles from our borders
Even ground forces have been reconfigured for maximum mobility, so that full effective ground combat can be waged anywhere in the world in the span of a month. This delay is considered acceptable since that provides a month for our air and sea forces to gain air superiority and soften any defenses.
The implicit reason for this is maintenance and coercion of our economic projects throughout the world, in order to sustain the resource consumption of America's economy. Our overconsumption leads to the reality that we must project power (via offensive threats) in order to "defend" our "security" (availability of resources)
This can only be concluded to mean we are an imperialistic aggressive country. Any pretensions to the contrary is strictly propaganda.
Re:Marked? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Marked? (Score:5, Interesting)
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:Look a little deeper (Score:5, Insightful)
You've conflated two completely separate concepts and somehow imagine you've had a "point" made.
The motivation for an act says nothing about the actual (or even just perceived) results. We can invade Iraq for oil, and wind up even worse off than before. That the result of our actions didn't match our desires doesn't retroactively change our motivation. That your professor doesn't believe it was "worth it" has no bearing on the motivation either, it's a statement of his opinion on the cost/benefit analysis.
I don't know where you were in 2002, but the war WE were all sold was to be a few months long, we were to be greeted as liberators, and within a year Iraq's oil sales would pay us back every penny for the cost. Either they were lying or they were just as absolutely wrong as any human can be about something. Neither speaks highly of their capabilities for leadership, but their complete failure/deception is the reason we've seen little benefit. Had they accomplished what they intended/sold, we would have seen many clear benefits, both in increased oil production/market availability and greater political influence at zero direct financial cost, as it would all be subsidized by another country's oil sales. We also would have seen American oil companies take production share from European competitors, potentially leading to economic benefits for America in general, but definitely leading to benefits for the major campaign contributors and dinner party guests of our current administration.
I hope for your sake that if you intend to remain a neo-con, you find much better mentors than any of the current influential neo-cons. They seem to be so lost in the theory of what they're doing, they never bother to open the door and see what the real world is like. Tragic that they've fallen victim to the same major failure they once condemned liberal "ivory tower intellectuals" for.
Re:Disgruntled (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously.
Possibly, but not every 06 gets their star and it's pretty clear real quickly if you will or will not. Most are neither bitter nor disgruntled - they've had fine careers; reached a level above the "done a good job" retiremnet point (i.e. LT Col or 05); and really acre about the Army (as an instituion) and it's Soldiers.
The telling point was how White and Shinseki were brushed aside because they didn't toe the line and had teh balls to say what they thought it would take to invade and occupy Iraq (every time I heard Rumsfeld talk about how several hundered thosuand was 200k not 300k it reminded me of Clinton's "that depends on what your definition of is is" defence.); it was equally telling how the Army had to go to a retired General to get a new Chief of Staff - a job that any GO would give their right nut or ovary for and the Vice Chief turns them down and umor had it so did several other GOs.
Re:Disgruntled (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wilkerson's attacks (Score:4, Insightful)
Nonsense. He said Cheney was intentionally putting undue pressure on the CIA (despite, again, having no such knowledge). How is that not an attack on the administration?
This is also the same guy who accused Cheney and Rumsfeld of being in a "cabal" to undermine State, and even the President. Said Feith was also in the cabal, and was "the stupidest blankety, blank man in the world." These are not attacks?
Yes, he does not attack Bush strongly, directly, but I didn't imply that directly: I was speaking there specifically of Clarke. I didn't say or intentionally imply Wilkerson was attacking anyone, even though he obviously was.
Why some people take this as an attack Against George W. Bush is puzzling.
How you can say the things he said do not constitute an attack against the administration is likewise puzzling.
Read your constitution
Duurrrr, we have a constitution? You don't say!
This isn't just about the Bush cabal! (Score:5, Insightful)
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! (Score:5, Funny)
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! (Score:4, Insightful)
Clinton's balanced budget myth. (Score:3, Insightful)
Greenspan was inflating the currency base faster than even. The CPI did not keep up with the M3 money supply. This put more money into the economy, inflating consumer prices but also inflating the stock market, causing higher than expected profits which in turn put more money back into the government in the form of taxes.
Re:Clinton's balanced budget myth. (Score:3, Informative)
While Clinton didn't balance the budget, I think it is fair to say that deficit growth was largely constrained at the end of the 90s. That these numbers piggybacked off of capital growth is something that should be taken into consideration.
Regardless of how serious we were about limiting the deficit THEN, we are certainly fairly cavalier about growing it NOW. (for we = America).
Re:This isn't just about the Bush cabal! (Score:3, Insightful)
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 mos
Re:This isn't just about the Bush cabal! (Score:3, Interesting)
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 pou
Re:This isn't just about the Bush cabal! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:This isn't just about the Bush cabal! (Score:3, Insightful)
It's always good to know what you want to prove when you go looking for evidence. It helps you prove it.
Re:This isn't just about the Bush cabal! (Score:3)
1 dollar in 1900 was worth 1/20th an ounce of silver. 1 dollar was just a receipt for 0.05 ounces of gold. Gold wasn't "worth" dollars, it was the other way around.
Government found that they can not control people unless they control the money supply. I just blogged about it [blogspot.com] a few minutes ago -- gov
Re:This isn't just about the Bush cabal! (Score:4, Insightful)
That being said, I don't really like the idea of gold or silver as the absolute currency. The way I see it, money *shouldn't* be backed by metal. Money, IMHO is basically a public account system for labor*. When you have currency, it's just like having an entry in your favor in the public ledger. You can exchange your money to anyone in the market for something of value because the market as a whole is indebted to you for the work you have done.
That's all it is -- we just have to keep track of who is owed what for the valuable things they have done. I don't care if it's good, silver, beans, tobacco leaves, paper, electronic signal, PGP keys, etc. Of course, any material or symbolic currency is susceptible to cheating, whether the government prints too much and drives up inflation, or people print their own fraudulent currency, or people steal currency from one another. So no matter what system we have, we still have to ensure that it's properly run.
Anywho, I think that, while there are problems with paper currency, and oversight of the paper currency authority, there are *more* problems with metal as currency. The main problem, IMHO, is that you can mine metals and basically get money for free. Money is really supposed to be exchanged in the market place for valuable work. However, owning a mine is then like having a money printing press. Furthermore, we can't make more metal (while we might be able to destroy it, it would be an expensive proposition, and a lot of people would like to take the result and reconstitute it). That means that we are not in control of the value of the currency. While there are problems with people manipulating the value, I think in the end, we still will want to be in control.
There is something about human beings that will make gold and silver valuable in any 'end of the world' scenario. Thus it's a very safe investment -- as long as you have the resources to defend, maintain, and transport these extremely heavy, extremely valuable, extremely confiscatable metals.
Let me ask you this -- where do you keep your gold and silver? If it's not on your property, my bet would be is that you would have a hard time getting your hands on it in the event that the dollar collapses. In a worse-case dollar-collapse scenario, I doubt you would be able to defend your gold and silver stash against whatever marauding gangs or paramilitary organizations are about. In any other case, how are you going to securely transport these precious metal? Do you have a personal security force?
* Even if you are selling goods, what the person is paying for is 1. getting and transporting the raw materials, 2. refining the raw materials into industry usable materials, 3. manufacturing materials into goods, 4. shipping and storing goods, and finally 5. selling goods in retail outlets. So even when you are selling a thing, what the buyer is really paying for is all the effort to make and get the thing to them.
Re:This isn't just about the Bush cabal! (Score:4, Insightful)
"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! (Score:5, Insightful)
Your point is reasonable, sane, mainstream and utterly feasible. However, your second point is absolutely wrong. You are making a common mistake among normal, respectable citizens. You believe that politicians are "nasty" and have a tendency to misbehave. A more realistic POV is that politicians are often "evil" and have a tendency to destroy all who oppose them.
I think Wilkerson's points are well taken. There are certain things that are constant in government, like taxes, war, power, secrets, money and lies. It doesn't really matter which party is in power. Sure, Republicans are a more obvious form of evil, but Democrats are much more subtle and insidious in power. Neither party is good for America. Both parties are corrupt.
Is it really so hard to believe that a group of wealthy businessmen, bankers and military types would conspire to "own" both parties so that no matter which way the public votes, they'll still be in power? That's not conspiracy-theory madness, that's just good business. Just look at the campaign contributions from the last few election cycles. Most major businesses & their leaders would give heavily to both parties. Why would you, as a businessman, want to piss off one of the parties? Doesn't it make sense to own both? Hell, politicians are cheap - you can rent-to-own for extremely low prices, like a couple hundred grand, but you can get back millions, if not billions of dollars in favorable legislation (tax breaks, pork, no-bid contracts, etc.). Let's not dance around the issues like we live in fantasyland: Corporate America owns the U.S. Government. They own both parties, less a few hardcore partisans and maybe a couple idealists.
You speak of crackpots, but I think you're the one dealing in crackpottery if you want me to believe that things are exactly as the (corporate) news media presents them. The truth is much more complex, and much uglier. Our politicians swear allegiance not to our liberties or the Constitution, but to the Almighty Dollar. Do they work together to keep their status/office? Of course: You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours.
You can call that a conspiracy. I call it business as usual.
Some good documentaries to check out if you want to look into how oil and the military industrial complex fits into all of this:
Why We Fight [imdb.com]
The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear [imdb.com]
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?
Why should the truth be convenient or rational? Why does the truth have to fit inside mainstream political discourse? Why should we have to let the politicians frame the debate and define the terms? You're the one who's ruining the discourse by throwing around words like "crackpot" while doing nothing to refute the grandparent's original points. If you want to have a discussion, then by all means, let's. However, you should concentrate more on facts and reality than attacking others' viewpoints just because they don't fit into your narrow reality.
Re:This isn't just about the Bush cabal! (Score:5, Interesting)
As if the phrase "Opeartion Iraqi Freedom" (yes, Iraqis gained some freedoms, but at the expense of others) wasn't bad enough, they actually had the nerve to go and mock real people's blood and guts with it.
Fourth estate? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fourth estate? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Fourth estate? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:3, Informative)
This is not news. (Score:5, Insightful)
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. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
But Tonight on Fox... (Score:5, Funny)
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...)
Re:But Tonight on Fox... (Score:3, Insightful)
Didn't they appoint someone to fix that problem?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Tomlinson [wikipedia.org]
To bad he retired under accusations of political bias.
[/Irony]
Grounds for impeachment? (Score:3, Insightful)
Impeachment (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
I detest him for not having the moral fiber to resign.
Re: Poor Colin Powell (Score:5, Insightful)
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,
Re: Poor Colin Powell (Score:3, Interesting)
If I see Powell, McCain, or Guiliani on the 2008 republican ticket, I would vote for any of them in a heartbeat.
The moderate/liberal republicans seem to be the most effective in office while still preserving a sense of honesty and integr
It's true. (Score:5, Funny)
False != hoax (Score:3, Insightful)
1. Hoax: intentional falsification of intelligence reports.
2. Honest mistake: Saddam's bluff took in the intelligence community, and every time his scientists lied to him they were lying to Western eavesdroppers.
3. Dishonest mistake: starting with the desirability of a war as a premise, drop any conflicting assessments onto the floor and assume that whatever you want to hear is the truth.
Draw your own conclusions, but read Woodward's _Plan of Attack_ first.
He didn't *know* it was a hoax... apparently. (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
Lack of responsibility (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
What do you think a democracy is for? (Score:3, Insightful)
Blame your fellow Americans for the way they voted in the last election. If the "people" don't care about being lied to or don't care about complete idiocy and incompetence they *deserve* to bear all the consequences of the incompetence, mistakes and lies of their leaders.
The American people had a chance to "bring Bush to account" and they gave him a big thumbs up.
Fuck democracy (Score:4, Insightful)
We don't live in a democracy. We live in a republic. To make politicians accountable, that's the first thing you have to realize.
You also have to realize that citizens of a republic have certain responsibilities. And I'm not talking about the patriotic bullshit that we're told by government schools, media, and other institutions. I'm talking about being an active, capable, independent member of political society. I'm talking about being able to withhold your vote if there are no candidates you agree with, if the only decision is between the lesser of two evils.
We're beyond government "ignoring the Constitution". We're beyond government "breaking the law". We're beyond government turning on it's own citizens. We're way into the realm of applied political science, here. So this is a crash course:
Politicians in the US are using the "anything we can get away with" method to screw us out of our freedoms, our property, and a large chunk of our labor. And they can do so because a large percentage of Americans aren't capable members of the republic. Many of us are dependent upon the empire. We have government jobs, government loans, government housing, business tax breaks, welfare, military pay, military benefits, social security. Each of these things is a chain that binds you to this government and anything it wants to do. As long as you are dependent upon government, this government will act like it owns you. It will tax you, find you work, feed you, house you, and when things get tough, it will send you to die in war. You are their nigger.
So if you and your family can't do that: if you can't live without government hand outs, if you can't eat without a government job and US money, if you can't heat your house without oil extracted at the point of a gun or coal strip-mined with the help of a court order, you are a slave already. You don't get to complain about how your master treats you. That's the first step: become a citizen deserving of freedoms. Be capable of asserting your independence. Take responsibility for being a member of the republic.
And the alternatives should be clear by now. As the president has said: it's us versus them. It's us, peaceful, freedom-loving individuals who are concerned for the future of America, versus them, lying, warmongering sycophants who are in it for themselves. It's those that build and create versus those that take and destroy. And here's how we'll win:
Stop voting. Don't register. Stop using US currency. Stop paying taxes.
Forget about protesting. Forget about democracy. Forget about "working within the system". That's all bullshit to keep idiots occupied. These four steps, taken on a massive scale, will bring down the US government faster than you can say "military coup". And it will do so peacefully, fairly, "democratically" even.
That's how you get your country back. But here's how you keep it:
If you find a politician you agree with, and you think he will win, get a written copy of what he plans to do. Get physical proof of all his political beliefs. Scrutinize it like a lawyer would. Don't fall for any vague crap. This is your contract. You are exchanging your vote, and your sovereignty, for this politician's word. Get it in writing.
Now, when you vote for the politician, and he wins, and he doesn't do what he said he would do, or does anything that is against the contract you have with him, sue him in court. Sue him for damages. Find co-plaintiffs. Demand to be relieved from your contract. Find another politician you can trust. Or, don't, and learn to live without government. But, most importantly, remember:
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
Re:Lack of responsibility (Score:5, Insightful)
You are insinuating the rest of the world thought Iraq had WMDs. Most of the rest of the world did not believe Iraq had WMDs. Bush was, in fact, going against the world's opinion, not with the world's opinion. According to UN inspectors, Iraq could not have significant amounts of WMDs, nor could they have concealed WMD development programs.
These findings were verified by US inspectors after the initial phase of the war.
How many Iraqis have been saved from torture, mutilation, and rape?
Less than have died as a direct result of the war. Much fewer than those that have been mutilated as a direct result of the war. Seems we carried on the use of torture.
You're probably right about the rapes, though.
If our goal is to stop state-sanctioned torture, mutilation, and rape, why aren't we in Sudan right this minute? More people are being killed there than have ever died by Saddam Hussein's orders.
Were you oppsed (sic) to Clinton's actions in Kosovo/
At the time? Yes. But he at least had UN backing. As it turned out, we were really fighting al Queda there, unlike in Iraq which was known to be antagonistic towards al Queda from the beginning.
So, let me get this straight. It turns out that all the evidence was trumped up by somebody, that the US built its case for war on a pack of lies, and you don't care who's responsible? You don't mind being misled, lied to, and generally deceived?
I'm not that honorable. I do mind being lied to (though I wasn't misled: I didn't believe evidence used to prop up the push to war, as much of it had already been discredited). In fact, I fucking hate being lied to. I want to find out who is responsible for the lies, and I wan't that motherfucker's balls served up on a plate with a side of potato salad and a nice glass of chianti.
The right war for the wrong reasons (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Very, very interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Very, very interesting (Score:5, Interesting)
First, and with respect to your service, impugning the character of Jack Murtha is beneath you. It's little better than when "Mean" Jean Schmidt did so on the house floor, and is disrespectful of the Representative's service and, even more importantly, his dedication to the well-being of our troops.
Second, you mischaracterize Rep. Murtha's proposal. Should you care to read it, it's available here. It calls for large-scale redeployment at "the earliest practicable date," which Murtha has in the past estimated as requiring about six months. This is hardly equivalent to "leaving right now." [loc.gov]
Third: rather than debate the "immediacy" of the representatives plan, many supporters of the administration have chosen to take issue with the notion of an "artificial timetable." Obviously you're free to agree or disagree with the idea, but keep in mind that a sizeable portion of the Iraqi National Assembly recently released a statement in which they called for that very timetable. Even more recently, they repeated that demand: tellingly, they condemned terrorism, but defined terrorism in such a way that excludes insurgents who attack the US Military.
So, respectfully, I would suggest that the Iraqis that you fought to "liberate" have spoken, and what they're saying is, "Thank you. Now get out."
Re:Very, very interesting (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm a bit of a leftie, and these days, we have fairly short fuses when it comes to accusations of treason or unpatriotism, and tend to see them where they really aren't. So my bad there, and thanks for clearing that up.
I did read the release that you linked. The full quote reads, "According to The LAT, Murtha called for beginning withdrawal immediately with completion in six months. He also urged a rapid deployment force remain in the region." That is a substantively different stance than "everyone out now," but the issue has been politicized so far by both sides that it's easy to lose the distinction.
This argument makes little sense to me. How would having a timetable make terrorists more likely to attack after the US withdraws than not having a timetable? If terrorists are waiting for the US to leave before stepping up attacks, why wouldn't they go into hiding and stop their attacks, then resume once the Bush Administration declares that we've won, packs up their things, and goes home?
The only answer I can come up with is that it's the very presence of the US forces that are provoking the attacks. In fact, once again from the PDF you linked to, a State Deparment study released in 2004 indicated that terrorism was on the rise in Iraq, and concluded that the US presence in Iraq was actually exacerbating the problem.
The Iraqi politicians are condoning attacks on US troops because it's what their constituents want to hear?
Do you really find that comforting?
Murtha is not 'on the left' (Score:3, Insightful)
If you knew anything about congressman Murtha you would know he is (or was) considered fairly conservative - which is why his speaking out had such impact. Of course, I expect him to be bran
Re:Very, very interesting (Score:3, Insightful)
By that I mean, what kind of man walks away from a problem he created to leave others to deal with?
I understand what you are trying to say, however they are some problems with this. To use your bar fight analogy, we are trying to fix up the bar while the bar fight is still going on. You cannot fix it because the situation is still a mess and is only going to get worse.
The US screwed up the situation in Iraq, but we are not in a position to fix it. Iraqis have to figure what they want to do and wher
It's Still Happening (Score:5, Interesting)
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:
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.Re:It's Still Happening (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure it is. If you have a lot of old people, and not a lot of young people, the system breaks. It's that simple. American social security works, because current workers pay for the current retiring generation. If you have a lot more people leeching benifits than are working, either taxes have to go (way) up or you have to decrease benifits.
If social security went into a fund where you were paying for your own generations retirement it
I knew it was a sham all along (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
You propagate the lie. (Score:3, Insightful)
Those with an anti-Bush agenda seem to forget that from the late 90's up until the war literally every single one of those I mentioned were in 100% agreement over Iraq's pursuit, aquisition and stockpiling of chemical, biological and nuclear materials with the ulitmate goal of manufacturing WMD's. Maybe they were all wrong (you really think everyone worldwide was so misled?), however if you believe recent reports from certain Iraqi sources about mass movements of materials to Syria just prior ot the invasi
Re:I knew it was a sham all along (Score:3, Interesting)
That's a pretty good hoax then (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:That's a pretty good hoax then (Score:4, Funny)
I voted for Bush because I was sick of Clinton's zipper going up and down. Body bag zippers go one way and they take a lot longer to close since they're about six feet long.
Re:That's a pretty good hoax then (Score:4, Interesting)
That is probably and optimistic figure, at least a according to Joseph Stiglitz:
The real cost to the US of the Iraq war is likely to be between $1 trillion and $2 trillion (£1.1 trillion), up to 10 times more than previously thought, according to a report written by a Nobel prize-winning economist and a Harvard budget expert.
This is from an article [guardian.co.uk] in the British newspaper The Guardian about a month ago.
One sure way to fuck the economy (Score:3, Interesting)
Uhm.... wrong.
The President has quite a bit of control over the domestic economy. The reason the economy was good under Clinton was because he obeyed one rule with the economy: do not spend more than you make.
There is a direct correlation between a balanced federal budget and the economy. Yes, Clinton enjoyed a false economic boom, but he was doing everything right to *foster* that boom. The national debt plays directly into the confidence of b
His father's Son.... (Score:3, Funny)
What son, when stepping into his father's footsteps, does not feel the urge to outrun his old man.
The war was sold on the installment plan (Score:3, Interesting)
But Bush was able to sell the war on a deferred payment plan which includes record deficits and raiding surpluses. If Bush said we are going to war and we are going to tax petro an extra 10 cents a gallon to help pay for it he would have gotten booed of the stage. There should always be a cost for all citizens to go to war as some families are called to pay the ultimate sacrifice.
I swear the most important number on peoples mind is the price of gas at the pump. The president's approval rating inversely proportional to the price of gas that fuel pump.
In another news story today... (Score:5, Insightful)
Wilkerson's "cabal" speech (Score:4, Interesting)
Video: http://www.newamerica.net/index.cfm?pg=event&EveI
Transcript (pdf): http://www.newamerica.net/Download_Docs/pdfs/Doc_
holy crap (Score:4, Funny)
USA and the spread of democracy (Score:4, Insightful)
The danger is that the US will intervene whenever there is a free and fair election result with which it doesn't agree - then we're back with the US installing and supporting their own dictators (Saddam Hussein anyone?) with all of their attendant power abuses simply to keep the 'wrong' people out of (legitimate) power.
History always repeats!
Re:Yawn... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Yawn... (Score:4, Interesting)
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... (Score:3, Insightful)
Does the average American actaully not have the two neuron minimum?
Few people bother applying their intelligence to things that they already know the answers to. And every american is given their answers to any political questions from their earliest days at school. They are told that America is the land of the free, that Democrats want to take all their hard earned money and give it to the lazy or that Republicans only care about the super-rich, that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour was unprovoked
Re:Old News (Score:3, Insightful)
SOP for the Corrupt Ohio Republican Party.
Re:Old News (Score:5, Interesting)
Would you personally be willing to die to "stay the course"? Would you ask your children to die for this cause? You're assuming that we can win the war in Iraq. If we can't win, then letting more of our bravest and most patriotic citizens die needlessly is equivalent to murdering them.
If anyone in this administration, including the president, lied or ignored evidence in order to push this war on the people, then they should be executed for treason.
Re:News For Nerds? (Score:4, Interesting)
In response to the article, I think it's the general consensus of everyone involved that we invaded Iraq for no good reason. Problem is, now that we've done so, we have to stick it out until Iraq is able to run themselves again.
Re:Not a hoax (Score:3, Interesting)
Bush has very little, if anything, to do with this. The ones accussed of the hoax are Vice President Richard Cheney and Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld. The evidence points to these two as the crux of the Iraq war. It is entirely possible that President G. W. Bush is merely a dupe, an easily-played pawn used by a group of high-level government officials, including people like ex-Deputy Secretary of Defence Paul Wolfowi
Re: Anyone noticed the lastest war song? (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps I'm naive, but I like to think even our current Moron in Chief realizes that we can't take on Iran right now.
However, I fully expect him to do something stupid that will cause Iran to become overtly involved in Iraq.