babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » national news   » Bush's Watergate?

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Bush's Watergate?
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 08 June 2003 11:18 PM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Is Lying About the Reason for a war an Impeachable Offence? By John Dean

quote:
In the three decades since Watergate, this is the first potential scandal I have seen that could make Watergate pale by comparison. If the Bush Administration intentionally manipulated or misrepresented intelligence to get Congress to authorize, and the public to support, military action to take control of Iraq, then that would be a monstrous misdeed.

As I remarked in an earlier column, this Administration may be due for a scandal. While Bush narrowly escaped being dragged into Enron, it was not, in any event, his doing. But the war in Iraq is all Bush's doing, and it is appropriate that he be held accountable.

To put it bluntly, if Bush has taken Congress and the nation into war based on bogus information, he is cooked. Manipulation or deliberate misuse of national security intelligence data, if proven, could be "a high crime" under the Constitution's impeachment clause. It would also be a violation of federal criminal law, including the broad federal anti-conspiracy statute, which renders it a felony "to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose."

It's important to recall that when Richard Nixon resigned, he was about to be impeached by the House of Representatives for misusing the CIA and FBI. After Watergate, all presidents are on notice that manipulating or misusing any agency of the executive branch improperly is a serious abuse of presidential power.

Nixon claimed that his misuses of the federal agencies for his political purposes were in the interest of national security. The same kind of thinking might lead a President to manipulate and misuse national security agencies or their intelligence to create a phony reason to lead the nation into a politically desirable war. Let us hope that is not the case.



From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
TommyPaineatWork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2956

posted 09 June 2003 02:06 AM      Profile for TommyPaineatWork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The difficulty will probably be in proving that the agencies were manipulated.

Listening to the U.K. news, it looks to me that the first line of deffence will be that the President was mislead by faulty intelligence.

And, if it's proven that the intelligence was manipulated, the second line of deffence will be to have underlings take the fall for it.

For impeachment, a good number of Republican Senators and Congressmen will have to be convinced that Bush in fact defrauded the U.S.

Even if the proof was there, I have doubts that enough would vote for impeachment.


From: London | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
TommyPaineatWork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2956

posted 09 June 2003 02:52 AM      Profile for TommyPaineatWork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Powell and Rice make the rounds

It could blow over.

This could also be the very moment though, where things start to unravel.

This is the first time this administration has been on the deffensive.


From: London | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
beluga2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3838

posted 09 June 2003 03:39 AM      Profile for beluga2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
First time since 9/11, you mean. For the first eight months of 2001, Dubya was well on his way to becoming a total washout lame-duck President, until Osama came along and saved his ass.

I agree, it's hard to say which way this'll go for the Bushies. I guess it depends on whether the Democrats decide to grow a vertebra or two and actually start behaving like an opposition party, instead of the meek patriotic poodles they've been for the last 18 months.


From: vancouvergrad, BCSSR | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
TommyPaineatWork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2956

posted 09 June 2003 06:45 AM      Profile for TommyPaineatWork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Gephardt's tone in the CNN report seems to indicate a poodle like approach, but on the other hand I think it's a wise one, if this does go down the impeachment path. Gephardt might be trying to not make this look likea witch hunt, and allow the facts to lead instead of the rhetoric.
From: London | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Willowdale Wizard
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3674

posted 09 June 2003 09:48 AM      Profile for Willowdale Wizard   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
well, it's been a year and a half without finding osama, mullah omar or ayman al-zawahiri. will not finding WMDs be that crucial to bush's credibility?

the crunch will come when powell and rice stop insisting that weapons will eventually be found.

quote:
Listening to the U.K. news, it looks to me that the first line of defence will be that the President was mislead by faulty intelligence.

i don't agree. depending on the day, it seems to be either,

a) the security services in the UK pressuring the government to admit that the bad intelligence didn't come from them, it came from the yanks, or,

b) events like blair's press secretary saying sorry. alistair campbell never apologises.

the independent, today,

quote:
Mr Campbell has written a personal apology to Sir Richard Dearlove, chief of the Secret Intelligence Service [MI6], for discrediting the service. He apologised for the release to the media in January of the so-called dodgy dossier on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The dossier "had not met the required standards of accuracy", he said.

From: england (hometown of toronto) | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
ReeferMadness
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2743

posted 09 June 2003 10:31 AM      Profile for ReeferMadness     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I don't buy it. Put bluntly, the American public has never gotten terribly torn up about people dying as a result of the misadventures of its leaders as long as those people are predominantly foreigners. The anti-Vietnam war protests were probably the zenith of concern over the plight of poor third world denizens and that was mostly because the media was allowed to bring in pictures of the horrors. And if you look at mainstream media commentary on Vietnam today, there must be 50 references to the 58,000 Americans that died during that war for every one on the millions of Vietnamese that were killed.
From: Way out there | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 09 June 2003 11:47 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
When you consider the topic of this thread, the chance of any loud public clamouring for impeachment seems low.

The US military isn't just killing the dark races in far distant lands, they're killing the symptoms of "Vietnam syndrome," which seems to make a lot of USians feel good about themselves.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 09 June 2003 12:46 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
For your entertainment, here's the obligatory hysterical rightie ad hominem response to Dean's op-ed:

John Dean is still a fraud and a media shill.


From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 09 June 2003 01:15 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
WMD's, Hoffa and the mob
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
paxamillion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2836

posted 09 June 2003 01:37 PM      Profile for paxamillion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Didn't I read that Hoffa had corrective surgery and became Martha Stewart?
From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 09 June 2003 02:01 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
... Hoffa jokes. For shame. Has no-one any respect for the missing anymore?
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
paxamillion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2836

posted 09 June 2003 02:07 PM      Profile for paxamillion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 

From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 09 June 2003 02:10 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
O stick out your tongue if you must, but all true Teamsters await the Father's return. The Son is merely a steward or caretaker.
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 09 June 2003 02:21 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This will not blow over, why would anyone let it. The consultants are probably making ads for the next election as we speak. But you have to realize the difference here. The Bush administration manipulated intelligence agencies to get the information he wanted. Technically there's no lie he's guilty of. In fact no world leader had intelligence that contradicted anything he produced. This was due to Saddam Hussein not giving the U.N. or the rest of the world the cooperation they needed to stand up to the U.S. Saddam's cooperation would have given them concrete evidence that the U.S. intelligence was wrong.

POSITIVE RESULTS

Maybe in the future other leaders will know that cooperation with the U.N. is their best defence against aggression from the U.S.

Second, this is probably the end of the first strike policy as no intelligence warranting a first strike will ever be trusted.

Third, all the intelligence agencies will now be faced with a demand to reform which was probably long overdue.

Bad news is that the Bush administration has insulated themselves well from impeachment. Intelligence agencies will take the fall. But this means that this tact will never be available to Bush again. He also will face a difficult battle come '04.

I see the ad now, "At least Clinton only lied about Sex" With a poster of a dead iraqi baby or U.S. soldier.

Now that rabblers are getting what they wanted they should be happy. THis is going to result in progress. And at least this unwarranted aggression was committed in a country where taking out the leader will result a net benefit to the people.

No one doubts that Iraq, with all its problems is still better off without Saddam. Target your attacks elsewhere. U.S. polls show that the majority are happy that U.S. overthrew Saddam. Don't mistake that for them being OK with being tricked into it by the Bush Administration. They can be glad about the war and mad about being tricked at the same time. They see the two as independant.


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 09 June 2003 02:28 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
So it's ok to be a hawk, so long as you were tricked into it honestly? It's ok not to question a perceived American doctrine of global hegemony, so long as a stray bullet from the war machine hits a deserving target? I don't understand the point of your post, Markbo. Some people are rightly angry that this adventure was carried out under the false banner of US security. Should they not be angry about this?


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 09 June 2003 02:29 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
The Bush administration manipulated intelligence agencies to get the information he wanted. Technically there's no lie he's guilty of. In fact no world leader had intelligence that contradicted anything he produced.

Don't buy any bridges in Brooklyn, Markbo.

quote:
France had the best human intelligence sources in pre-war Iraq.

President Jacques Chirac warned Bush and Blair there were no such weapons, and rightly refused to join their illegal invasion of Iraq. Blair foolishly listened to Bush instead of Chirac.


C'est vrai, cliquez ici


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 09 June 2003 02:39 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Markbo:
[QB]This will not blow over, why would anyone let it.

Because they will apply the 'fetishist split' that highly indoctrinated people perform; 'Well yes, I know that this is all bad and everything - BUT - my country did a good thing, afterall....' This fetishism has actually been the lynchpin of the ideological defense against criticism of this war.

quote:
The Bush administration manipulated intelligence agencies to get the information he wanted. Technically there's no lie he's guilty of.

That would be what HIS lawyers might say - the other side could argue that they 'cherrypicked' and spun evidence to deliberately mislead.

quote:
In fact no world leader had intelligence that contradicted anything he produced.

You keep repeating this pro-war nonsense, but it doesn't make it any more true. France was known to have the best on-the-ground intelligence on Iraq before the war. They told everyone that no WMDs would be found, and voila! Moreover, there was a lot of rumbling from within the American intelligence establishment itself. Still further, newspapers and media outlets (largely outside the U.S.) reported on the plagiarist fraud of the 'Powell Dossier'. In fact, Markbo a whole lot of people provided evidence to the contrary, and their protests have been borne out in fact.

quote:
This was due to Saddam Hussein not giving the U.N. or the rest of the world the cooperation they needed to stand up to the U.S.

Stop confusing things - the U.S. can do what it wants because no one has the FORCE to stop them. No amount of evidence - such as that provided by the UN Inspection team, and the IAEA on behalf of Saddam - stopped them.

quote:
No one doubts that Iraq, with all its problems is still better off without Saddam.

Remember what I said above about the 'fetishist split'? There you are....just like clockwork.

[ 09 June 2003: Message edited by: Courage ]


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 09 June 2003 02:45 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Clockwork, paging clockwork, your honour has been impugned, please respond...
From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cougyr
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3336

posted 09 June 2003 02:45 PM      Profile for Cougyr     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Blair is probably in more trouble than Bush, partly because the English system allows for a mid-term party coup. The English people were never as supportive of the war in Iraq as the American people.

The protest against the war in Vietnam didn't get rolling until the American body count rose to public awareness. As long as it was just foreigners dying, it was ok with the American public.


From: over the mountain | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Willowdale Wizard
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3674

posted 09 June 2003 03:27 PM      Profile for Willowdale Wizard   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Don't mistake that for them being OK with being tricked into it by the Bush Administration. They can be glad about the war and mad about being tricked at the same time. They see the two as independant.

i'd love to see links to a few articles that flesh this out.


From: england (hometown of toronto) | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
dale
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3201

posted 09 June 2003 03:51 PM      Profile for dale        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It's hard to understand why Marko wrote:
quote:
Now that rabblers are getting what they wanted they should be happy.

I'm for damn sure not happy now that many that innocent people have died and are still dying because of Bush's lies.

This, in addition to the assortment of other fallout that has come from Bush's evil, illegal war, should make no one "happy."

Sick perhaps!

dale


From: zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Harry Balzac
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3664

posted 09 June 2003 03:52 PM      Profile for Harry Balzac     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
The protest against the war in Vietnam didn't get rolling until the American body count rose to public awareness. As long as it was just foreigners dying, it was ok with the American public.

I don't think this is true, or at all constructive to claim.

I think the American people have been lead to believe that there have been very few casualties. I don't think the American people would be comfortable picturing themselves as the invading hordes, slaughtering the innocent. But as the mainstream media will not give out a bodycount, nor show the children maimed by cluster bombs, there is little discomfort being felt.


From: where the Eglinton subway line should run... | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
paxamillion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2836

posted 09 June 2003 04:06 PM      Profile for paxamillion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cougyr:
The protest against the war in Vietnam didn't get rolling until the American body count rose to public awareness. As long as it was just foreigners dying, it was ok with the American public.

Wasn't it a couple of Life photos -- the execution of a prisoner by pistol shot, and some Vietnamese children running screaming from their destroyed village -- that played a key role in turning the tide against the administration of the day?


From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 09 June 2003 04:11 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Wasn't it a couple of Life photos -- the execution of a prisoner by pistol shot, and some Vietnamese children running screaming from their destroyed village -- that played a key role in turning the tide against the administration of the day?

The first incident, at least, took place during the Tet Offensive. I think it was Tet that really began to turn the tide of public opinion. In general, Americans had been told for years that the US was winning the war. Suddenly the enemy seemed to be everywhere at once, even the US Embassy in Saigon. (The fact that Tet actually ended up a loss for the Viet Cong and NVA didn't erase the shock).

In particular, influential Americans turned strongly against continuing to fight the war, of whom the most influential was probably Walter Cronkite.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
ReeferMadness
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2743

posted 09 June 2003 05:02 PM      Profile for ReeferMadness     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
This was due to Saddam Hussein not giving the U.N. or the rest of the world the cooperation they needed to stand up to the U.S. Saddam's cooperation would have given them concrete evidence that the U.S. intelligence was wrong.

So, the Bush administration lies to the American people and the world but somehow, this, too is Saddam's fault.

Tell me, Markbo, how exactly do you prove a negative?


From: Way out there | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Kindred
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3285

posted 09 June 2003 05:03 PM      Profile for Kindred     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
http://democrats.com/elandslide/petition.cfm?campaign=911
World Net Daily http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31510
http://www.petitiononline.com/ddc12/petition.html

CBC http://www.cbc.ca/storyview/CBC/2003/06/07/iraq_badintelligence


hope these work

http://www.impeachbushbumperstickers.com/

Four Reasons to Impeach Bush
http://www.thefourreasons.org/

IE: Many members of the Bush Administration are convicted criminals. In 1992, the International War Crimes Tribunal found the senior officers in the first Bush administration guilty on 19 counts of Crimes Against Peace, War Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity and other criminal acts in Violation of the Charter of the United Nations, International Law, The Constitution of the United States and Laws made in Pursuance thereof, for crimes committed during “Operation Desert Storm”. View a list of our `elected' officials, their appointees, and their criminal offenses.

quote:
Anti-War Leader Launches Campaign to Impeach Bush
by Michael L. Betsch • Saturday February 22, 2003 at 01:19 PM

(CNSNews.com) - A former U.S. attorney general has drafted articles of impeachment against President Bush and three other top administration officials as a means of preventing the U.S. from advancing a "first strike, potentially nuclear preemptive war" against Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.

Anti-War Leader Launches Campaign to Impeach Bush
By Michael L. Betsch
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
February 11, 2003



http://www.indyhawaii.org/news/2003/02/873.php

WOW the internet is FLOODED !
David Enrich, a reporter at States News Service, covers Washington for several newspapers.http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-enrich030603.asp

sorry for the muddle in this post - this is interesting


From: British Columbia | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Kindred
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3285

posted 09 June 2003 05:30 PM      Profile for Kindred     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I think the American people have been lead to believe that there have been very few casualties. I don't think the American people would be comfortable picturing themselves as the invading hordes, slaughtering the innocent. But as the mainstream media will not give out a bodycount, nor show the children maimed by cluster bombs, there is little discomfort being felt.


I think that why the US hasnt allowed Doctors Without Borders into the country We still dont know the full extent of the horror.

One thing we do know is that people involved have been threatened (reporters) and bribed, (cushy contracts and positions, and probably more than a little cold cash to keep silent about the real situation) and God only knows what else - well we know some have been killed dont we?


From: British Columbia | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 09 June 2003 11:17 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
So it's ok to be a hawk, so long as you were tricked into it honestly?

what does that mean? Your definition of a "Hawk" is anyone who disagrees with a notion of "Peace at any cost"

quote:
I don't understand the point of your post, Markbo. Some people are rightly angry that this adventure was carried out under the false banner of US security. Should they not be angry about this?

They are rightly angry but my point as has been all along is that they will express their anger by distorting the truth making their voices inneffective.

The false banner was not U.S. security it was the fact that intelligence cannot be trusted. Intelligence can be manipulated and that it can never be used to justify a first strike doctrine unless it is reformed in a meaningful way.

If you make it about anything else you will take away from the credibility of the above point.

Other valid points are that Dictators who cooperate with the U.N. stand a much better chance of defending themselves against U.S. agression. That Bush seized an opportunity presented to him by Saddam's non compliance and his actions. No one was willing to do anything to help Saddam's regime the most they would do was protest the U.S. actions. Big deal.

quote:
Don't buy any bridges in Brooklyn, Markbo.

Not only from Bush but from any world leader because they all had the same intelligence and made the same conclusions.

quote:

France had the best human intelligence sources in pre-war Iraq.
President Jacques Chirac warned Bush and Blair there were no such weapons,

I never saw his warning that weapons did not exist. Only that more inspections were warranted.

quote:
Because they will apply the 'fetishist split' that highly indoctrinated people perform;

Yep, not worthy of having a vote, eh? Polls already show that they can hold two thoughts in their minds. One that they are happy they went to war while at the same time they are mad at the Bush administration that no WMD have been found.

quote:
That would be what HIS lawyers might say - the other side could argue that they 'cherrypicked' and spun evidence to deliberately mislead.

Someone would have to have come up with an opposing conclusion to prove that. No one did, everyone believed WMD existed, many just thought it did not justify military action.

quote:
In fact, Markbo a whole lot of people provided evidence to the contrary, and their protests have been borne out in fact.

There was no reports that WMD would not be found before the invasion. Saddam himself refused to provide evidence to the contrary or cooperate with inspections. He was a willing accomplice to this military action.

quote:
top confusing things - the U.S. can do what it wants because no one has the FORCE to stop them. No amount of evidence - such as that provided by the UN Inspection team, and the IAEA on behalf of Saddam - stopped them.

WRONG ON BOTH COUNTS. If they wanted to stop the U.S. the U.N. could have put 10,000 peacekeepers there to defend them. But no one wanted to defend Saddam. Saddam's current actions and history prevented them from taking action.

quote:
Remember what I said above about the 'fetishist split'? There you are....just like clockwork.

Fitzgerald would call it intelligence. Too bad you can't hold two opposing thoughts in your head at the same time.

quote:

Don't mistake that for them being OK with being tricked into it by the Bush Administration. They can be glad about the war and mad about being tricked at the same time. They see the two as independant.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i'd love to see links to a few articles that flesh this out.

Actually I'm repeating the words of Bill Schneider, senior CNN political analyst. I heard him in Washington and he said that these were the results of polling they conducted. But, I have no hard data myself, I hope you don't question my honesty, especially on this issue where my being right should give you hope.


quote:
I'm for damn sure not happy now that many that innocent people have died and are still dying because of Bush's lies.

THen you misread my post. babblers should be happy that their predictions that "Bush would get away with it due to victory" are mistaken and that Bush's policy of "preemptive first strike" will end and that it is unlikely he will so easily manipulate intelligence and the U.S. people so easily in the future.

Otherewise, you'd rather a greater number of innocent people die at Saddam's hands instead as this was the only alternative outcome offered.

quote:

So, the Bush administration lies to the American people and the world but somehow, this, too is Saddam's fault.

YEP

Tell me, Markbo, how exactly do you prove a negative? [/QUOTE]

BY COOPERATING FULLY WITH THE U.N.


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 09 June 2003 11:32 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Markbo, where where you? They were cooperating.Even dismantling missiles that went a few kilometeres beyond what was allowed.

The US made it clear from day one they wanted a war at any cost.

THEY LIED. To you, The world.

They killed God knows how many people (because Americans don't believe Iraqi lives are valuable enough to count) to steal oil. They are nothing more than thugs and theives no better tha the Baath party that killed Kurds to steal their oil. The same despicable people.

And still you apologize for them.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 10 June 2003 12:03 AM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Yep, not worthy of having a vote, eh? Polls already show that they can hold two thoughts in their minds. One that they are happy they went to war while at the same time they are mad at the Bush administration that no WMD have been found.

The split is already in play, vote or not. You, and various other cheerleaders for the war demonstrate it all the time - 'yeah sure my country is lead by liars, sure they claimed we were under threat (your absurd attempt to delink the issue of U.S. security from the WMD claim nothwithstanding; how else did Iraq 'threaten' the U.S., one wonders?) and we weren't, sure they justified doing away with the UN framework because this was a 'greater threat', and yet, on second thought, it's okay, because the ends justify the means....

You don't understand the fetishist split - the point is not that two ideas cannot be held in the head at once, it is precisely that two contradictory ideas are held in the head at once, and while the fetishist can claim ironical distance from the 'ideas' his behaviour demonstrates that he is utterly enthralled by one of them - he cannot act differently. The point is that whether the average U.S. citizen is upset over the lack of WMD or not is unimportant because they continue to support the imperial venture of which the lie was a part - they have utterly accepted the coordinates provided by the neocon fascists and put their behaviour behind the U.S. illegally attacking and occupying a foreign state with no regard for anyone but themselves - and this they call 'Just'... The 'split' is in seeing that the two thoughts in fact oppose one another, and carrying on as if this didn't matter. This is the true level of ideology; i.e. I know that the State Department is full of liars who deliberately mislead me, but my country right or wrong, and besides, we won, and that is good....' So while you are fed apologies and stories about Winnabagoes, you are tacitly supporting an imperial occupation of a third world country - a racist, immoral undertaking supposedly shamed by history. Meanwhile, in Baghdad...


quote:
Someone would have to have come up with an opposing conclusion to prove that. No one did, everyone believed WMD existed, many just thought it did not justify military action.

Actually, there is significant evidence (such as the Straw/Powell discussion) which casts a great deal of doubt on whether high-ranking members of the U.S. and British governments really believed what they were saying.


quote:
There was no reports that WMD would not be found before the invasion.

But there was strong evidence that there was no real threat from them, or that their efficacy was long-past due. Usually it is good to have your ducks in a row BEFORE you kill thousands of civilians, tear international law to shreds and attack other states. But, to you I suppose this is just details - a good imperial war is heart-warming...

quote:
Saddam himself refused to provide evidence to the contrary

One cannot prove a negative - haven't you figured that out yet? That's not an argument...

quote:
or cooperate with inspections.[/quote

Hans Blix would disagree, as would the majority of the UN Security Council who felt that inspections were proceeding satisfactorily and ought to be continued.


[quote]WRONG ON BOTH COUNTS. If they wanted to stop the U.S. the U.N. could have put 10,000 peacekeepers there to defend them. But no one wanted to defend Saddam.


You are so funny when you try to talk 'facts'. First of all, a 'peacekeeping force' is used when a conflict already exists - the UN doesn't just randomly send in troops to occupy territory and fight on behalf of one state or the other, so your statement is a complete non sequitor. Second, who could they have placed 'peacefeepers' into a situation where one of the combattants was a P5 Security Council member with a veto, AND the strongest military state on the planet, bar none? The law was in place for just such a problem - but the U.S. decided that international law doesn't suit it's imperial design, so they have chosen to stomp on it.

A query: Do you even think before you type this stuff?

quote:
Fitzgerald would call it intelligence. Too bad you can't hold two opposing thoughts in your head at the same time.

As above, it is clear that you don't understand what I was talking about. Next time, ask when you are confused, it'll save me time, and you embarrassment, though your history shows that you aren't really aware of your ineptitude....


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 10 June 2003 12:37 AM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Actually, there is significant evidence (such as the Straw/Powell discussion) which casts a great deal of doubt on whether high-ranking members of the U.S. and British governments really believed what they were saying.

Its also irrelevant to the point. The point being there was no evidence contrary.

quote:
But there was strong evidence that there was no real threat from them, or that their efficacy was long-past due. Usually it is good to have your ducks in a row BEFORE you kill thousands of civilians, tear international law to shreds and attack other states. But, to you I suppose this is just details - a good imperial war is heart-warming...

Yeah your right, they shouldn't have attacked. Thankfully this wrongheaded policy was conducted against a tyrannical regime that will result in far less loss of civillian life. But then again thats why they were able to pull it off.

quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saddam himself refused to provide evidence to the contrary
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One cannot prove a negative - haven't you figured that out yet? That's not an argument...


He could have reduced U.S. popular support for the attack by cooperating with the U.N. likely preventing it. He likely would have changed the position of Britain and even prompted action by the U.N. preventing any aggression.

quote:

Hans Blix would disagree, as would the majority of the UN Security Council who felt that inspections were proceeding satisfactorily and ought to be continued.

THAT IS A LIE. THey strongest statement they made was that cooperation was beginning and that more was needed. He submitted information that was could have been submitted a decade ago only a week before the invasion. Time and time again he refused the U.N. and then changed his mind only in the face of a growing U.S. threat. He refused at first to dismantle missiled forbidden by U.N. resolutions only to change his mind weeks later when the U.S. threatened. This behaviour was systematic.


quote:
You are so funny when you try to talk 'facts'. First of all, a 'peacekeeping force' is used when a conflict already exists - the UN doesn't just randomly send in troops to occupy territory and fight on behalf of one state or the other, so your statement is a complete non sequitor. Second, who could they have placed 'peacefeepers' into a situation where one of the combattants was a P5 Security Council member with a veto, AND the strongest military state on the planet, bar none? The law was in place for just such a problem - but the U.S. decided that international law doesn't suit it's imperial design, so they have chosen to stomp on it.

A query: Do you even think before you type this stuff?


Explain to me precisely why French, German, Russian, Chinese or Canadian troops could not have been dispatched to protect Iraq? Maybe I used the U.N. improperly, but these countries refused to protect Saddam's regime regardless of how much they protested the U.S. action.

Saddam was a willing accomplice in this military action. He could have prevented at every turn by simply cooperating with the U.N.

You can call me names, you can correct and have me adjust some of my statements. You cannot show in any way that what I'm saying is wrong.

The U.S. should not have invaded Iraq based on the false pretense of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Saddam Hussein was a potential threat to the U.S. and a real threat to his own people. The world is a better place with his removal from power.

Remember, once a war was declared, no Democratic government wanted nothing but a quick U.S. victory. Maybe the next tyrant will get that message. Use of intelligence will be meaningfully reformed. In the end this war will result in a tremendous amount of positive reform. Its tragic that many died for this. Far more would have died without this.


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 10 June 2003 10:11 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The tyrant, Markbo, is George Bush.
Would he did is no different then what Iraq did in invading Kuwait, except Saddam was honest as to the reason. When will you go to war against the US?

And look, Markbo, George Bush's lie just kolled another one:

quote:
The US soldier was the third to be killed in Iraq in five days, in what appears to be an emerging pattern of local resistance in several parts of the country.

"Assailants pulled up to the checkpoint in a vehicle and requested help for a 'sick' person in the car. Two people armed with pistols then exited the vehicle and shot the soldier," the US military said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2974616.stm


[ 10 June 2003: Message edited by: WingNut ]


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ray Peterson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4178

posted 10 June 2003 10:56 AM      Profile for Ray Peterson   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
How come everyone has written off the WMD ? The security council all believed that Saddam had them. The only thing they disagreed on was how to disarm him. But when the WMD are found (anything short of a nuclear missle ready to be launched, I predict, won't be sufficent for you guys) there will be 2 reactions. 1 - they were planted.
2 - it still doesn't justify the war.

Let's be fair and give the US 12 years to find these weapons. I have a feeling it won't take that long.


From: Hinkley Hills | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 10 June 2003 11:47 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Not only from Bush but from any world leader because they all had the same intelligence and made the same conclusions.


I never saw his [Chirac's] warning that weapons did not exist. Only that more inspections were warranted.


Do you have a private information source that makes you privy to the inner machinations of international diplomacy?

We don't know what these people knew beforehand, told each other when no reporters were around, or what they're hiding now.

We know only what they tell us. And so far it's been a pack of lies.

12 years? That's a mighty long attention span.

Last night, it emerged that the American units charged with tracking down Iraqi weapons of mass destruction have run out of places to look and are getting time off or being assigned to other duties

[ 10 June 2003: Message edited by: al-Qa'bong ]


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 10 June 2003 12:03 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
How come everyone has written off the WMD ? The security council all believed that Saddam had them. The only thing they disagreed on was how to disarm him. But when the WMD are found (anything short of a nuclear missle ready to be launched, I predict, won't be sufficent for you guys) there will be 2 reactions. 1 - they were planted.
2 - it still doesn't justify the war.

Let's be fair and give the US 12 years to find these weapons. I have a feeling it won't take that long.



And for how long must Iraq be occupied before you will be satisfied there are none? My, God, all Bush can point to is two trailers even experts agree were not used for chemical weapons.

They said there were 40,000 sites and they can't find one. And you still think they will find some?

Further, the security council passed a resolution. It was up to inspectors to verify there was no banned weapons. They were doing that. The US was so opposed to allowing them to finish their job because doing so would have eliminated the one pretext for war everyone in the Bush adminsitration could agree on. And then they would have had to invent something else.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 10 June 2003 12:08 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
How come everyone has written off the WMD ? The security council all believed that Saddam had them. The only thing they disagreed on was how to disarm him. But when the WMD are found (anything short of a nuclear missle ready to be launched, I predict, won't be sufficent for you guys) there will be 2 reactions. 1 - they were planted.
2 - it still doesn't justify the war.
Let's be fair and give the US 12 years to find these weapons. I have a feeling it won't take that long.

When the UNSC wanted more time for the inspections to work, the U.S disregarded those concerns and trundled off to rampage through Iraq. Now that Hussein is gone (and, apparantly, forgotten, at least by Bush and Co.) the gung-ho crowd is now asking that the U.S. be given more time to conduct weapons inspections. Anyone else detect the pungent stench of hypocrisy?


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Youngfox.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4102

posted 10 June 2003 12:15 PM      Profile for Youngfox.   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 

[ 23 September 2003: Message edited by: Youngfox. ]


From: Hypercube | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 10 June 2003 01:55 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Ray, please read:
quote:
U.S. military units assigned to track down Iraqi weapons of mass destruction have run out of places to look and are getting time off or being assigned to other duties, even as pressure mounts on President Bush to explain why no banned arms have been found.

src: U.S. hunt for Iraqi banned weapons slows

[ 10 June 2003: Message edited by: WingNut ]


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Kindred
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3285

posted 10 June 2003 02:02 PM      Profile for Kindred     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The fact is the weapons inspectors and the CIA and France and whomever else ALL said there is NO evidence of WMDs in Iraq. NONE. Yet Bush continued to sell a war to the US on the basis that there were WMDs - he lied. He had all the facts that there werent and he continued to LIE. Bush wanted the war to revenge his father for one thing. He lied about his real reasons. He wanted the war so he could gain control of their oil resources. He lied about that too.

He lied about civilian casualties.

quote:
The U.S. should not have invaded Iraq based on the false pretense of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Saddam Hussein was a potential threat to the U.S. and a real threat to his own people. The world is a better place with his removal from power.
marko

Explain how Iraq was a threat to the US? Somewhere along the line the US started claiming Saddam was behind 9/11 and that too is a lie. But people bought it, swallowed it whole.

If Iraq and Saddam were such a threat to the US why was his brother a partner in the Bush oil companies? What threat did they present to the US specifically or directly? The threat of having control over their own oil so that the US didnt have a world monopoly?

Bush disobeyed a ruling of the UN. Plain and simple so what does that make him? I wouldnt talk about Bush and Canada and the US when Bush pretty much said he didnt give a rats ass what the UN said because he had no intention of listening to them or anyone else.

Having the strongest armed forces to do what Bush wanted them to do does not make him right, it doesnt make the situation right. If you know anything you should know our Peace Keepers are already scattered around the world and we didnt have the resources to deploy them into Iraq or fight a war against the US. That doesnt make what Bush did right. Bush is the real terrorist here.

There is even evidence around 9/11 now that needs a lot more investigating, it appears there was pre knowledge of it - Bush needed a reason to incite war and hate and this was it.

Bush should be impeached. End of story. His actions were those of a Despot and the seriousness of his crimes against humanity, war crimes cannot be ignored. He is a traitor to his own country. The man was and is out of control. The US went to war on the word of a meglomaniac sociopath - he is not a sane person. The world can see that, and now so can a lot more Americans, including the CIA and others.

I know you believe any country is better off under US domination Marko but no one else in the world shares your opinion.


From: British Columbia | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 10 June 2003 02:16 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
The tyrant, Markbo, is George Bush.

According to you only, the majority of people that are governed by him disagree. Thats what counts.

quote:
And look, Markbo, George Bush's lie just kolled another one:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The US soldier was the third to be killed in Iraq in five days, in what appears to be an emerging pattern of local resistance in several parts of the country.


No George Bush's action resulted in the death of that one soldier vs. the filling of another mass grave. Vs. The 3000 children who starved each month under the leadership of Saddam Hussein.

Those who killed that soldier, those who truly caused his death, would rather live in a country that is governed by dictators who would cause the deaths of many more. Those who shot that soldier are what we all fight against. THose who hate. GW BUsh has made them direct that anger at soldiers vs civillians. Kinda evened up the odds better.

quote:
And for how long must Iraq be occupied before you will be satisfied there are none? My, God, all Bush can point to is two trailers even experts agree were not used for chemical weapons.
They said there were 40,000 sites and they can't find one. And you still think they will find some?

Number one, I believe the intelligence was wrong but I am not completely satisfied that Saddam is innocent, I'd give it a year still. Doesn't mean I'm defending military action. Just means I won't believe that Saddam is innocent that easy.

quote:
Further, the security council passed a resolution. It was up to inspectors to verify there was no banned weapons. They were doing that.

Your WRONG HERE They never got the cooperation that the resolution required. THey could only state cooperation was beginning, they could never state that Saddam complied.

quote:
The US was so opposed to allowing them to finish their job because doing so would have eliminated the one pretext for war everyone in the Bush adminsitration could agree on. And then they would have had to invent something else.

The only reason they had any limited success in performing their job was due to the U.S. military buildup. Kofi annan acknowledged that himself.

quote:
the gung-ho crowd is now asking that the U.S. be given more time to conduct weapons inspections. Anyone else detect the pungent stench of hypocrisy?

NO ONE ASKED FOR MORE TIME, only the exact same amount of time the U.N. requested and expected. Those who demanded instant results after only a week of the ceasement of hostilities are the only hypocrites.

Remember I am not defending Bush, his policy of preemptive first strike has now been proven flawed due to faulty intelligence. His policy was wrong, Reform must take place to ensure that the U.S. does not follow flawed policy in the future.

Meanwhile, Saddam is gone, saddam is gone, the wicked witch is dead. Take comfort that the wrong policy resulted in positive results and hope for the people of Iraq. That it will be easier to fix our policy with one less tyrannical dictator in the world.


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 10 June 2003 02:44 PM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
the majority of people that are governed by him disagree. That's what counts.

Would they still disagree if they weren't consistently lied to or misled by the media and the administration? That counts too.

quote:
The 3000 children who starved each month under the leadership of Saddam Hussein

It was the sanctions that were starving the children. Saddam's leadership, minus the sanctions (pre-'91) was still a brutal dictatorship (which many current white house denizens thought was just fine at the time) but it never starved anybody. Actually, it produced the highest standard of living in the middle east, excluding Israel. I'm not defending Saddam, or the people who set him up, just stating a fact.

quote:
Those who killed that soldier,... would rather live in a country that is governed by dictators

The country is currently governed by dictators who shoot and kill protesters. You forget this very easily.

No doubt many of the attacks against the US occupation are by people who would see a repressive theocracy in place, but there is no doubt in my mind that some are carried out by people who want a better, democratic Iraq and believe, for good reason, that the US will never allow it. Unlike you, I don't feel I can pass moral judgements out-of-hand on the intentions of people resisting foreign occupation.


From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 10 June 2003 02:47 PM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Number one, I believe the intelligence was wrong but I am not completely satisfied that Saddam is innocent, I'd give it a year still.

Hey, Markbo: didn't you loudly and repeatedly claim, 2 months ago, that it would take less than one month to find WMDs? Does this additional year start now? Or did it start at the moment your first claim was revealed to be utter horseshit?

From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 10 June 2003 03:08 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The tyrant, Markbo, is George Bush.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to you only, the majority of people that are governed by him disagree. Thats what counts.

Just to clarify, the "majority" Markbo refers to is the five members of the Supreme Court who appointed Bush.

quote:
No George Bush's action resulted in the death of that one soldier vs. the filling of another mass grave. Vs. The 3000 children who starved each month under the leadership of Saddam Hussein.

Actually George Bush's actions have resulted in the deaths of probably hundreds of US soldiers and untold numbers of Iraqis. That could probably fill a fair-sized ass grave right there. Bush I's sanctions, as well as coalition bombings of such improtant military targets as water treatment plants also had a fair amount to do with those dead kids. Saddam Hussein was brutal and repressive, yes. But under his control Iraq had built itself up into the most advanced nation in the Arab world.
quote:
Your WRONG HERE They never got the cooperation that the resolution required. THey could only state cooperation was beginning, they could never state that Saddam complied.

Iraq was inching towards cooperation (admittedly due to the build up of US forces in the region), but that all went out the window when Cowboy George and his posse decided to ride in with guns blazing.

quote:
Meanwhile, Saddam is gone, saddam is gone, the wicked witch is dead. Take comfort that the wrong policy resulted in positive results and hope for the people of Iraq. That it will be easier to fix our policy with one less tyrannical dictator in the world.

At least this is something of an aknowledgment that regime change was the true objective of the invasion, not th ethreat poised by the mythical WMD. However, you make it sound as if there's a genuine interest in reshaping the U.S. policies that led to the invasion of Iraq, when in fact said policies are becoming enshrined.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Kindred
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3285

posted 10 June 2003 03:21 PM      Profile for Kindred     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
the wicked witch is dead
Aww but you are forgetting Bush is hunting for more witches - and has apparently found them, all over the world so his war machine can crush everything and everyone in the world who disagrees with his mania -- The man is total SLIME. He wont stop with killing thousands and thousands of innocent civilians, lying to his people, lying to the media, threatening the media, killing reporters, terrorizing people - ignoring the UN, using sanctions, threats, bribes, terrorist tactics to get what he wants -

And what does Bush really want? To be Lord and Emperor of the whole world, thats what Bush wants, to control and rule the world and he isnt stopping with Iraq - he will do ANYTHING to achieve his goal, and we have already seen that --including threatening, terrorizing and silencing his own people and killing them, because I believe he allowed 9/11 to happen -- he is EVIL personified - and he has to be stopped.


From: British Columbia | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 10 June 2003 04:14 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
And what does Bush really want? To be Lord and Emperor of the whole world, thats what Bush wants, to control and rule the world and he isnt stopping with Iraq - he will do ANYTHING to achieve his goal, and we have already seen that --including threatening, terrorizing and silencing his own people and killing them, because I believe he allowed 9/11 to happen -- he is EVIL personified - and he has to be stopped.

Whoa! That's some heavy shit, man. But I think your anger and fear are misplaced. Bush is what he always has been: a dullard, an easily manipulated, spoiled, self-centred jerkoff with no compassion or understanding for anyone outside his own privileged caste. Not a ringing endorsement and certainly not qualities you want in a leader (especialy the leader of the most powerful nation on the planet). But it's a stretch to say Bush wants to rule the world, given that he's shown little interest in ruling America. Rather, Dubya is a patsy for the powerful interests who really run America: the military industrial complex, big oil and the rest of the corporate profiteers who see America (and indeed, the world) as nothing more than a resource to be exploited for the sake of turning a quick buck. Bush and his handlers (the Cheneys, Roves, Wolfowitzs and Rumsfelds) exist only to place the wealth and might of the U.S.A at the disposal of these special interests. In return, the Bushevicks receive hefty componsation in the form of campaign donations and lucrative private sector kickbacks (see: Halliburton/Dick Cheney), and the chance to make their mark on the world, even if it means they have to trample every principle of democracy, international law and human rights to get it. Oh, and lil' Georgie gets dress up as the "Commander-In-Chief" for as long as he follows the script and keeps his mouth shut.

Thing is, I'm not sure which scenario is scarier.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 11 June 2003 08:19 AM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 

[ 11 June 2003: Message edited by: Markbo ]


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 11 June 2003 08:25 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I don't forget it. I know there will be no mass graves starting. But it does not refute my point that if those who killed the soldiers would be targetting someone else if the soldiers weren't there. They would be targeting embassies, civillians, kurds, whatever. At least now they're targetting someone who is capable of fighting back.


I am going to unapologetically put words in your mouth, Markbo. You are implicitly saying that anyone who takes up arms against an occupying military force is a terrorist. This means that French resistance fighters fighting Nazis were terrorists. Jews fighting the same group in the Warsaw ghettos were terrorists. Regular Afghans resisting the Russian occupation in the eighties (I'm not talking Muhajedeen here) were terrorists. Very nice view you have of history from your little ivory tower.


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 11 June 2003 08:34 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
So, then, America was founded by terrorists and is therefore a nation of terrorists?
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Kindred
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3285

posted 11 June 2003 02:59 PM      Profile for Kindred     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I may be naive but I want to believe the Americans are going to realize that they were lied to and manipulated by a despot who anyone who has stiudied history can tell you, followed Hitlers hand book on how to manipulate and terrorize people into supporting him.

I do believe Bush wants to rule the world. We are seeing Empire building, much the same way Hitler wanted to build an empire,and other ancient civilizations. Bush is prepared to move into Asia, after taking over the Middle Eastern countries. He already feels confident he/the US controls North America. And face it, they do.

His purpose is to disarm every major contender while the US now goes ahead developing its own arms. And we know that IS happening. He is planning on putting US missle bases in Canada, I believe for and in case of a pre-emptive strike against Europe/Soviet Union.

quote:
And what does Bush really want? To be Lord and Emperor of the whole world, thats what Bush wants, to control and rule the world and he isnt stopping with Iraq - he will do ANYTHING to achieve his goal, and we have already seen that --including threatening, terrorizing and silencing his own people and killing them, because I believe he allowed 9/11 to happen -- he is EVIL personified - and he has to be stopped.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Whoa! That's some heavy shit, man


Is it? Get out a map of the world and start marking off places Bush is planning on hitting next, and places where he has started trouble by behaving like such a total shit towards them -

Who's leaders has he insulted and tried to stir up shit with? Russia, Korea, China, Canada, France, is it Syria? Iran? What countries are being flamed by the US media? "If you arent with us, you are against us". Who has been accused of harbouring and aiding terrorists? Who has a lot of "terrorist" activity going on, and when it gets bad enough will supposedly "welcome" the US moving in to "clean up their country" too?

This is exactly what Hitler did, he won people to his side by creating a state of panic and fear in the very people he claimed he would free from the terror -- allegedly caused by "others".

The world hasnt seen a propoganda machine like this at work since Hitler. I have had friends who lived in Germany, who admitted they believed Hitler, who have told me what their media reported at that time - and the lies they all believed.

I am hoping and believing that the full wrath of the American people, when they realize the extent to which Bush lied to them, will fall on Bushes (sp?) head and we will see the American people rally to what they can be -

My American friends and family members are good people they are just too damn gullible when it comes to their leaders. They do this ridiculous "hero worship" thing in the US all the time as if their leaders are decended Gods. And that it their greatest weakness.


From: British Columbia | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 19 June 2003 12:11 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Iraq is half the size of South Africa, whose banned weapons were found instantly when apartheid ended. Iraq is not, as Bush protests, "a big country"; in two months, American soldiers have exhausted search possibilities. Nor have Iraq's weapons fled the country. Or been found. They have not existed for years. But soldiers died because George W. Bush said they did.

For this egregious abuse of his oath of office, he should be impeached.


Impeachable Offence


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 19 June 2003 03:47 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Russian press has an opinion as well!!

quote:
But for Bush, the loss of a little cannon fodder here and there obviously represents "no threat" to real Americans: you know, the pious hypocrites who profit from lies and murder, the well-guarded cowards who gorge themselves on the "burned meat" in Iraq's mass graves -- past, present and future.

Moscow Times


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 19 June 2003 05:10 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Now that's writing!

quote:
Oh, to have been a fly on that wall as Rumsfeld squinted tenderly into Saddam's beady eyes and pledged to lavish him with American money to build his war machine, American technology to fuel his internal repression and American military intelligence for his poison gassing of Iranian troops and missile attacks on Iranian civilians. How many thousands of lives were sacrificed in that moment of explosive power-guy passion! It must have been a real bodice-ripper.

[ 19 June 2003: Message edited by: al-Qa'bong ]


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 19 June 2003 05:46 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Now that's good commentary!
quote:
The Dear Leader's own spokesmen tell us it is "Baathist die-hards," who are likely being paid if not directly supervised by the still-alive, still-free dictator himself. Saddam, it seems, enjoys considerably more liberty than the liberated Iraqi people. And he is a much greater threat to Americans now -- as a free agent, with nothing to lose, operating in secret -- than he ever was as the struggling head of a crippled country crawling with UN inspectors, Kurdish armies and Allied warplanes controlling his skies. From 1991 to 2003, not a single American death can be tied to Saddam Hussein; but in the seven weeks since Bush declared "mission accomplished," his partisans have killed more than 40 Americans.

They're up to 50 now.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 20 June 2003 04:03 AM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Ha! Here's a columnist that really lays the cards on the table. Kinda shows you how gutless our media is even when criticising Bush & co. I think I'll bookmark the Moscow Times. If everything is that high in quality, it will be well worth my attention.
From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 20 June 2003 10:25 AM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
More Chris Floyd articles at "make them accountable dot com".
|
|
V
And to avoid double posting:

Bush's Watergate and now Bush has his own Vietnam . . . maybe two!!

quote:
Once more, we hear that America is being "sucked into a quagmire". The rapacious adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan are going badly wrong. By John Pilger

New Statesman dot com

[ 20 June 2003: Message edited by: No Yards ]


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca