No Weapons Found!

[Andy D]

Well now it seems official, well at least here in the land of democracy ;) , that there are no weapons of mass destruction at least non yet found yet? But do not worry because Jack Straw still tells us that the evidence points to the weapons being there.

As this whole affair gets shown for what it really is, a sordid affair, and the Blair Government is increasingly being seen for what it is, a self-obsessed and increasinglt detached Government, the spin just gets bigger and bigger!

Perhaps the person who decided to 'infect' the list took issue with some of the radical ideas that many of you generate. But of course if this was the case, this is a futile act, just like the attempts by the UK Governemnt to convince us all that it really listens to the people ;)

Regards

Andy D.

[Greg]

But hopefully you realize that he exists.

[BFrank]

What kind of whacky intelligence does the Bush adminstration rely on anyway? They were SURE that there were WMDs, yet they are now "shocked" that the infrastructure is in such poor shape.

How could they "know" one and not the other?

[Fran]

It is true that no WMD have been found yet, but it is also increasingly clear that no BBAs have as yet been discovered either.
It is also clearer every day that no BBA exist.




BBA=Brains in the Bush Administration

[BeRiGaN]

Originally posted by BFrank
What kind of whacky intelligence does the Bush adminstration rely on anyway? They were SURE that there were WMDs, yet they are now "shocked" that the infrastructure is in such poor shape.

How could they "know" one and not the other?
From the Boortz.com page 2 days ago.....
Here .. try this test. No fair cheating by referring to yesterday's Nuze. Just tell me who made this statement:

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

No clue? That was Hillary Clinton on the campaign trail in October of 2002. Now, try this one:

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

That statement is from none other than Teddy Kennedy, the man who now says that the entire war in Iraq is a fraud.

[Andy D]

What is more worrying is that the people seem not to be bothered by this, at least here in the UK we are having some kind or debate, even though the circumstances in which this came about is a tragic one!

I think out intelligence is as whacky as yours!

Regards

Andy D.

[Chris A.]

Journo claims proof of WMD lies

Posted by admin on Tuesday, September 23, 2003 11:31 AM

Pilger uncovered video footage of Powell in Cairo on February 24, 2001 saying, "He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction."

By Paul Mulvey in London
news.com.au, 23 Sep 03

AUSTRALIAN investigative journalist John Pilger says he has evidence the war against Iraq was based on a lie that could cost George W. Bush and Tony Blair their jobs and bring Prime Minister John Howard down with them.

A television report by Pilger aired on British screens overnight said US Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice confirmed in early 2001 that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had been disarmed and was no threat.
But after the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington on September 11 that year, Pilger claimed Rice said the US "must move to take advantage of these new opportunities" to attack Iraq and claim control of its oil.

Pilger uncovered video footage of Powell in Cairo on February 24, 2001 saying, "He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours."

Two months later, Rice reportedly said, "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."

Powell boasted this was because America's policy of containment and its sanctions had effectively disarmed Saddam.

Pilger claims this confirms that the decision of US President George W Bush - with the full support of British Prime Minister Blair and Howard - to wage war on Saddam because he had weapons of mass destruction was a huge deception.

Pilger interviewed several leading US government figures in Washington but said he did not ask Powell or Rice to respond to his claims.

"I think it's very serious for Howard. Howard has followed the Americans and to a lesser degree Blair almost word for word," Pilger told AAP before his program was screened on ITV tonight.

"All Howard does is say `well it's not true' and never explains himself.

"I just don't believe you can be seen to be party to such a big lie, such a big deception and endure that politically.

"It simply can't be shrugged off and that's Howard's response.

"Blair has shrugged it off but Blair is deeply damaged. It's far from over here, there's a lot that is going to happen and much of it could wash onto Howard.

"And it's unravelling in America and Bush could lose the election next year.

"I've not seen political leaders survive when they've been complicit in such an open deception for so long."

Howard last week dismissed an accusation from Opposition Leader Simon Crean that he hid a warning from British intelligence that war against Iraq would heighten the terrorist threat to Australia.

In his report, Pilger interviews Ray McGovern, a former senior CIA officer and friend of Bush's father and ex-president, George Bush senior.

McGovern told Pilger that going to war because of weapons of mass destruction "was 95 per cent charade."

Pilger also claims that six hours after the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Centre, US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said he wanted to "hit" Iraq and allegedly said "Go Massive ... Sweep it all up. Things related and not."

He was allegedly talked down by Powell who said the American people would not accept an attack on Iraq without any evidence, so they opted to invade Afghanistan where Osama bin Laden had bases.

Pilger claimed war was set in train on September 17, 2001 when Bush signed a paper directing the Pentagon to explore the military options for an attack on Iraq.

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,7350504%5E2,00.html

[BFrank]

You will definitely find hypocritical statements on both sides, but the fact is that Bush & Co. exploited the mis-information into a full-scale war that is costing billions of dollars (US dollars only, thank you), and thousands of lives (Iraqis are people, too).

[Greg]

While it's true that no WMDs have been found (that doesn't mean there absolutely weren't any; merely that they haven't been found), many previously unknown mass graves have been found. It's unconscionable that people claiming to care about Iraqis think it would have been ok to let Hussein and his sons stay in power.

Also of significance, we are getting cooperation from Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia that would have previously been impossible. This is going to figure enormously in the war against terror.

[Chris A.]

Apropos things unconscionable... and some who recognize it...

Israeli pilots refuse missions

26.09.2003


JERUSALEM - Twenty-seven Israeli pilots say they will refuse to carry out operations in the Palestinian territories.

The pilots sent a letter to the Israeli Air Force commander yesterday declaring their refusal to carry out duties, which include track-and-kill operations, in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

"We, veteran pilots and active pilots alike ... are opposed to carrying out illegal and immoral attacks, of the type carried out by Israel in the territories," one of the pilots told Israel's Channel 2 television.

"We, who have been educated to love the state of Israel ... refuse to take part in Air Force attacks in civilian population centres. We ... refuse to continue harming innocent civilians."

The television station said almost half of those who signed the petition were flying missions once or twice a week. Israeli reserve pilots can be called upon to fly in military operations.

"We are talking of 27 pilots out of thousands," Air Force commander Major-General Dan Halutz told Israel Radio, apparently referring to active, reserve and retired pilots.

Air Force Brigadier-General Ido Nehushtan said the 27 were a "marginal, small group".

Israel's Army chief, Moshe Ya'alon, said the pilots, who include senior reserve officers, could be punished for what he called their illegitimate and forbidden statement.

"If we'll need to take steps [against them], we'll take them ... We have to examine the matter," he told Channel 2.

Israel has killed 12 Hamas militants in air strikes in the Gaza Strip since a Hamas suicide bombing killed 23 people in Jerusalem on August 19.

Several bystanders have also been killed in the attacks, which Israel has used to assassinate top Palestinian leaders from the militant group.

Israel has an active group of conscientious objectors who have refused to serve in Palestinian territories, but the letter marks the first time that pilots have protested in a separate group.

Israeli servicemen can be jailed for refusing to carry out orders.

- REUTERS


Good for them!

[Greg]

That doesn't have anything to do with Iraq, but my feeling is that it would be time to really celebrate if 27 suicide bombers, Fatah, Islamic Jihad, and Hamas terrorists sent a letter to Arafat telling him they will not terrorize Israelis anymore. Of course that will never happen. Israel's pluralism and love of peace, expressed so forcefully by the reserve/retired pilots, stands in stark contrast to the Palestinians who seem to march only in support of Hamas, or to congregate around their leader who has screwed them for 30 years and led them to a terrible plight. Peace marches are common in Israel. It is part of why I support Israel unconditionally.

[Andy D]

Unconditional support mmm interesting not sure if there is really any gain in this?

To think that all Palistinians support Hamas, is as limited a view as to suggest that all the people in Israel support the present Government. The thing is that these people have little voice, drowned out by people who seek to serve their own purpose and means.

What is clear, as today has shown when a 3 yr old child was killed in yet another armed raid by Israel, is that the hatred of some will continue, just as sure as the victims of the suicide bombers fuels the hatred of the Palistinians that some people in Israel have!

I suggest you read 'around' this subject you may be surprised. No peace is worth the oppression of another people, no matter what the historical arguments. All that happens is that the anger and hatred rear the head once again.

For me I have no unconditional support for anything, for the are always many different ways of looking at things.

Regards to you

Andrew.

[Andy D]

In the UK the basis for the War was the WMD and the threat that they posed. On this basis we ignored the UN and allied ourselves with the Devil and his kind ;) and now as Malcolm X once suggested the chickens have indeed come home to roost!

May be they will find them, or may be they will be 'planted' by an increasingly desperate US and UK Government, who need to justify the whole sorded thing! Either way after all the searching, all the technology nothing has yet been found, and this brings into question the whole issue of why TB went to war?

A modern day crusade to out do even the great crusade of Richard? A fight for democracy? An attempt to 'grab' the rich oil fields of Iraq? or something else? History is already judging this shameful event!

Regards

Andy D.

[Greg]

Originally posted by Andy D
Unconditional support mmm interesting not sure if there is really any gain in this?

Just derision from those like you.

To think that all Palistinians support Hamas, is as limited a view as to suggest that all the people in Israel support the present Government.

Yawn. How tiring it must be for you to continually have to convince yourself that a society that does most things right and stands for progress and construction is on the same moral footing as a society that does most things wrong and stands for regress and destruction.

The thing is that these people have little voice, drowned out by people who seek to serve their own purpose and means.

The 27 pilots managed to have their voices heard. Where are the Palestinians for peace? I don't see them and I don't buy your line.

What is clear, as today has shown when a 3 yr old child was killed in yet another armed raid by Israel,

I didn't hear about the 3 yr old child, but I did hear about the Islamic Jihad leader of the South West Bank, who was killed along with four other terrorists. These were mass murderers who Israel has been pleading with the PA to arrest. So frankly I blame the death of the innocent on the PA and its refusal to lift a finger against terrorism.

I suggest you read 'around' this subject you may be surprised. No peace is worth the oppression of another people, no matter what the historical arguments. All that happens is that the anger and hatred rear the head once again.

If it was up to Israelis, they would be living side by side with Palestinians. If you are concerned about anger and hatred, address your concerns to the jihadis who are firmly committed to religious war, which for decades has been drilled into the heads of Palestinians. Their "religious duty" is to kill Jews, according to imams broadcast on PA-authorized TV and radio.

For me I have no unconditional support for anything, for the are always many different ways of looking at things.

Exactly. Why let facts get in the way when you can view the world through a whitewash; a moral kaleidoscope that mixes up the cause and effect to such an extent that it's just gibberish to you.

Regards

[Andy D]

Anger and absolutism are a disease of all people who feel they have something to protect, but of course in doing so they further divide opinion and create the eternal conflict that we currently see in this region.

" Those like you" mmm I wonder what appears to make you so angry? My first degree was in history, and I learnt many things about all colonial powers and dictators, one of which is that they need " Those like you", to justify many things! My second degree was in clinical psychology and I learnt that people are motivated by many things, and often this is the resaon why the hate, they become killers and seem to justify all kind of things.

One of the best books I have read is " Hitler's Willing Executioners - Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust" by Daniel Jonah Goldhagen. If you have not yet read this book, I recommend it to you, my hope would be that you may begin to see, what right now you seem unable to.

Regards

Andy D.

[Greg]

I have seen an equally discouraging disease under the guise "commitment to open mindedness" in which everything is undeservedly painted with the same brush. Anger is very well just justified after 2000 years of persecution that have led a people to the brink of extinction and a slice of land the size of Delaware. And if "absolutism" is survival and security than "absolutism" it shall be. You can't further divide opinions when the opinion is that your people and your country should not exist. That's as wide as the chasm gets and as for whether the conflict is eternal, that depends on those who see the conflict as a religious war. I certainly don't.

>> " Those like you" mmm I wonder what appears to make you so angry? <<

Oh, I dunno. Maybe terrorists and their apologists. BTW, the first part of the "those like you" sentence was "just derision from". You conveniently left that out of your quote.

>> My first degree was in history, and I learnt many things about all colonial powers and dictators, one of which is that they need " Those like you", to justify many things! <<

Brilliant! What a fantastic student you must have been!

>> My second degree was in clinical psychology and I learnt that people are motivated by many things, and often this is the resaon why the hate, they become killers and seem to justify all kind of things. <<

You needed two degrees to learn that? Most of us realize it by the time we're adolescents.

>> One of the best books I have read is " Hitler's Willing Executioners - Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust" by Daniel Jonah Goldhagen. If you have not yet read this book, I recommend it to you, my hope would be that you may begin to see, what right now you seem unable to. <<

First of all, you're in no position to tell me what I can and can't see. Secondly, Goldhagen simply took his doctoral thesis and with very little revision, transformed it into a book that is barely readable. It just puts in academic language that which has been common knowledge for decades: that more "ordinary" Germans were active participants in the Holocaust than the history books tell us.

As for your reasons for bringing this up after a post about Israelis going into Palestinian territories to try to arrest Islamic Jihad terrorists. . .Andy, if you're comparing Israel to pre-wwII Germany or if you're comparing Israeli soldiers or citizens to nazis, you're far more disgusting than I realized. I'll assume you aren't making such comparisons for the time being and that your irrelevant recommendation of Goldhagen was simply a brainfart. Since we're suddenly recommending books on the Holocaust, my recommendation for "must read" goes to The Holocaust Chronicle: A history in words and pictures.

[Chris A.]

Don't let this character get to you, Andrew. There is a reason why he he was shown the door at another BBS.

[BFrank]

Originally posted by Greg
While it's true that no WMDs have been found (that doesn't mean there absolutely weren't any; merely that they haven't been found), many previously unknown mass graves have been found. It's unconscionable that people claiming to care about Iraqis think it would have been ok to let Hussein and his sons stay in power.

Also of significance, we are getting cooperation from Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia that would have previously been impossible. This is going to figure enormously in the war against terror.

I only remember the WMDs as being the reason that we went to war - and in such a hurry.

Also of significance, I'm not sure what Iranian and Syrian cooperation you are referring to. I thought we were threatening them because they weren't cooperating. As for the Saudis - they don't like it when we point out that most of the 9/11-ers were Saudi...........NOT Iraqi.

[Andy D]

Chris.

I work with 'angry' people everyday and I always find it interesting, I am curious as to why people feel the way they do? I am grateful for your thoughts.

Regards

Andy D.

[Greg]

Originally posted by BFrank
I only remember the WMDs as being the reason that we went to war - and in such a hurry.

That's funny. All most of us on these boards talked about was oil as the reason we went to war. The fact is that we went to war for geopolitical reasons, and I've said so all along. Anyone looking at a map can plainly see the significance of having troops in Iraq.

[Also of significance, I'm not sure what Iranian and Syrian cooperation you are referring to.

The cooperation on the part of Iran with the UN nuclear watchdog group. The closure of the Damascus offices of many terror groups including Hamas and Islamic Jihad, which the U.S. had been requesting for years prior to our invasion of Iraq. And several other recent developments in Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia.

I thought we were threatening them because they weren't cooperating.

They're still slimey, but the governments are a lot more cooperative when they see tens of thousands of U.S. troops next door, and are actually starting to lift a finger against terrorism.

As for the Saudis - they don't like it when we point out that most of the 9/11-ers were Saudi...........NOT Iraqi.

And as for the entire Muslim world--half the Earth's population--they wouldn't like it if we appeared too hostile against Islam's holiest land, Mecca and Medina. You'd want our troops in Saudi Arabia? Our current strategy is much better.

[BFrank]

And as for the entire Muslim world--half the Earth's population--they wouldn't like it if we appeared too hostile against Islam's holiest land, Mecca and Medina. You'd want our troops in Saudi Arabia? Our current strategy is much better.

But it's OK to "appear" hostile to Iraq?

One of the primary reasons we were attacked (according to OBL) was that we DID have troops in Saudi Arabia. I don't see why there should be any less hostility against us having an army in Iraq. In fact from most reports, the terrorists (whoever "they" are) are starting to gather in Iraq now that there's a serious lack of security and the borders are porous.

[Andy D]

What the US did and indeed the UK as well is once again impose their values, political, social and economic on a country that has a very different set of values.

Saudi Arabia is one of the most oppressive countries in the World, a fact that the US and the UK seem to ignore, in the name of geo-political interests. The US has a poor record of attempting to 'convert' countries to its way of thinking, with consequences that go way beyond the confines of the US.

The US had little of no idea what they would do after the war was over, did they think that the people would welcome them with open arms? It did not happen in Veitnam, and the many countries in South America etc. This is what the US has never understood, that you cannot impose your will on people by force or some sense of moral crusade.

The US have no business being in Iraq, they had no business being all over South America and undermining world democracy! But hey that is not the US Governments concern, nor the concern of those countries that rely almost totally on US money!

Regards

Andy D.

[Andy D]

Adam.

Np doubt about it Saddam was an evil guy, but was he the only one and why Saddam? Why not start with the Government of Syria or Iran or the real 'evil one' in North Korea?

Why not go after the dictators in Africa or the Government of Indonesia, for the murder or the people of East Timor?

Selective intervention is ok, but the price you pay for that is what we see now! Did Saddam pose a greater threat than the North Korean's? In my view no he did not, so why have the US not invaded North Korea?

You are threatened ( If you are an American that is), because of your government policies and historical abuses. You are under attack, because you seek to justify your way of life in a way that abuses human rights all over the world. The US Governemnt talks about the right to freedom and democracy, and yet it has little of this at home and non in terms of its foreign policy.

The US has not moved on North Korea nor Iran etc, partly because they pose a greater risk to the US Army, which has a very poor record against organised armies.

Regards

Andy D.

[Greg]

BFrank said:
But it's OK to "appear" hostile to Iraq?

The entire point of my post was that we needed to take action in the Arab world to exert more diplomatic pressure on terror-sponsoring countries, and that attacking Saudi Arabia would have been seen by the entire Muslim world as an attack on Islam. So yes, an attack on Iraq appears less hostile to Islam.

One of the primary reasons we were attacked (according to OBL) was that we DID have troops in Saudi Arabia.

Now we don't.

I don't see why there should be any less hostility against us having an army in Iraq.

Maybe that's because you're not Muslim. In Islam, the holy land is in Saudi Arabia. Come on, man. This is not rocket science.

In fact from most reports, the terrorists (whoever "they" are) are starting to gather in Iraq now that there's a serious lack of security and the borders are porous.

Good. Better Iraq than Canada or inside the U.S.

Andy D said:
What the US did and indeed the UK as well is once again impose their values, political, social and economic on a country that has a very different set of values.

No, they just ousted a hated dictator who ruled on the tenets of violence and fear, and are seeking to install a government representative of the people, which, contrary to Hussein's Baath regime, include Shi'as and Kurds.

Saudi Arabia is one of the most oppressive countries in the World, a fact that the US and the UK seem to ignore, in the name of geo-political interests.

Yep. That interest is called "attempting to avoid pissing off the entire Muslim world to the point of no return".

The US has a poor record of attempting to 'convert' countries to its way of thinking, with consequences that go way beyond the confines of the US.

Obviously. Most of the world is nowhere near as advanced, progressive, hard working or wealthy.

The US had little of no idea what they would do after the war was over, did they think that the people would welcome them with open arms?

That's an old wives' tail in the anti-US media like the Guardian and BBC that spoonfeed you your news. The fact is that most Iraqis do welcome the U.S., especially outside the Sunni triangle.

It did not happen in Veitnam,[sic] and the many countries in South America etc. This is what the US has never understood, that you cannot impose your will on people by force or some sense of moral crusade.

The U.S. understands foreign diplomacy better than anyone. We won the cold war. But before I let you derail the conversation too much, let's get back to the middle east.

The US have no business being in Iraq,

If the U.N. had put some bite to its bark and done something about all those resolutions Iraq had violated, the U.S. wouldn't have business being in Iraq. The fact is that we do, we are, and we will be there for a long time fighting terror right in the middle of the Arab world.

Adam Lozo said:

I believe we were led into a war under a false set of assumptions. The truth lies somewhere between the words we heard from Prez Bush and company and the need for us to gain a toehold in a part of the world where we feel most threatened. Iraq to me was simply the 'easy target' to establish a presence in the mideast. There are real threats out there and people who would love to see harm come to the US lifestyle.

I agree with much of that. Those who listened to dubya and bought his yarn probably feel let down. Those who have been paying attention to the Arab world and understand our need for military presence to increase diplomatic leverage will understand the action we took. The fact that we got rid of a butal dictator and whatever he had up his sleeve is icing.

Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, North Korea and Israel/Palestine will all move more cautiously because the US is close to their borders with a huge well equiped army at the ready. I feel that the ultimate success/failure of the GWB plan is yet to be realized and rests within how these countries policies change given the new political landscape.

I agree. It will be interesting how this plays out, esp w regard to N. Korea. There is a AP article today explaining some of our strategy.

Andy D said:
Np doubt about it Saddam was an evil guy, but was he the only one and why Saddam? Why not start with the Government of Syria or Iran or the real 'evil one' in North Korea?

The governments of Syria and Iran have strong support in their own countries and abroad compared to Iraq. and NK has nukes, so you can't "start with" NK without risking a nuclear war. Come on, Andy. This is really not too complicated, is it?

Why not go after the dictators in Africa or the Government of Indonesia, for the murder or the people of East Timor?

Wow, the fingers are pointing all over the globe, the blinders are up and the paintbrush of moral equivalency is waving all over the place. How predictable. You might as well ask, "why do you have to do things? Why don't you do other things?" So weak is your thinking here.

Selective intervention is ok, but the price you pay for that is what we see now! Did Saddam pose a greater threat than the North Korean's? In my view no he did not, so why have the US not invaded North Korea?

Because if you invade NK, you have a nuclear warhead flying toward Tokyo or Seoul. And even if you don't, you have no diplomatic leverage for terror sponsoring states like SA, Syria or Iran, all of which BORDER Iraq. Is the lightbulb going on yet?

You are threatened ( If you are an American that is), because of your government policies and historical abuses.

No, you're threatened because of "jihadi" mentality which will ultimately have you kneeling east five times a day or beheaded, take your pick.

You are under attack, because you seek to justify your way of life in a way that abuses human rights all over the world.

Ah yes. The braindead approach to global understanding: all ills are the fault of the U.S. Even the totally uneducated of Jakarta feel this way, so you are in good company with completely brainwashed masses.

The US Governemnt talks about the right to freedom and democracy, and yet it has little of this at home and non in terms of its foreign policy.

I'm pretty sure my opportunities, freedoms and my power as an individual are on par, if not head and shoulders above, the rights of individuals in other progressive nations in the world. You've obviously been believing too many op ed pieces your BBC has been spoonfeeding you.

The US has not moved on North Korea nor Iran etc, partly because they pose a greater risk to the US Army, which has a very poor record against organised armies.

Well, we know you radicals would love to see a war that's REALLY costly to the U.S., but hopefully it will not come to that. I don't think Iran is much of a match for the U.S. and as I've pointed out repeatedly, NK needs to be handled very carefully--a fact that you don't seem to be too sensitive to. You do know what a nuclear warhead can do, right?

[Chris A.]

It's amazing how this guy can sit there in California and come up with all the answers. Even more amazing is the fact that he really seems to think that he knows everything--the rest of us are "idiots" (he'll revert to the name-calling soon enough). :rolleyes:

[Greg]

Zzzzzzzzzzzz

Chris, how many times are you going to post that EXACT same message? 100 times? 200? 300? How long has it been since something new permeated the ol' dura mater there around your noodle?

I've obviously put some thought into current events. If you have different thoughts that seem worth discussing, please share them. But if you're just regurgitating anti-US rhetoric from op ed pieces you've read in the NYT or BBC, I'll probably disagree.

[Chris A.]

Were it only that simple.

[Alexander]

There is only one response to the Bush apologists: Bush lied. That's all that needs to be said.

"But...what about the mass graves?"

Mass graves were not the justification for war. WMDs were. Bush lied.

"But...what about the war on terror?"

The war on terror was not the justification for war. WMDs were. Bush lied.

"But...what about liberating the Iraqi people?"

Liberating the Iraqi people was not the justification for war. WMDs were. Bush lied.

Yes, all of the reasons Greg and others give are good reasons, and if the Bush administration had used them instead of WMDs, they'd be in great shape. But the truth is, they didn't. They used WMDs as justification. They knew that Iraq did not pose the threat they claimed it did, but they continued to play the WMD card. Greg played it too, using that old "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud" line. The difference is that Greg was just a dupe. Bush knew it wasn't true. Bush lied.

[Greg]

Originally posted by Alexander
There is only one response to the Bush apologists: Bush lied. That's all that needs to be said.

All politicians lie.

"But...what about the mass graves?" Mass graves were not the justification for war. WMDs were. Bush lied.

Oh, boy, Alexander. When making the case for war, Bush said quite often that Hussein mass murdered his own people, often framing it in the context of the fact that Hussein wouldn't hesitate to mass murder others.

"But...what about the war on terror?" The war on terror was not the justification for war. WMDs were. Bush lied.

Are you just making up lies to say "Bush lied"? In every speech to the public, dubya tied the war on iraq to the war on terror. He focused on WMDs only in the context of Hussein giving a WMD to a terrorist, and any fool can plainly see that, in that capacity, Hussein didn't need to have a weapons program. He just needed to acquire one WMD to ruin your whole day.

"But...what about liberating the Iraqi people?" Liberating the Iraqi people was not the justification for war. WMDs were. Bush lied.

Excuse me, but dubya and especially cheney talked quite a bit about liberating Iraq. You have made a kind of neolib Ken Star of yourself, criticizing dubya the way the conservatives criticized Clinton. If you're going to attack dubya, at least do it for valid reasons: fiscal irresponsibility, record on the environment, poor foreign diplomacy with our allies.

They used WMDs as justification. They knew that Iraq did not pose the threat they claimed it did, but they continued to play the WMD card. Greg played it too, using that old "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud" line. The difference is that Greg was just a dupe. Bush knew it wasn't true. Bush lied.

Am I a dupe? If we could do a little experiment, go back in time, decide to not invade Iraq, as time went on we could have indeed seen a mushroom cloud. Under our noses, Hussein could use his immense wealth to buy a nuclear weapon and use it to destroy Israel or even an American city. Or develop a small pox weapon that could kill millions. Or deliver nerve gas cannisters to terrorists.

Would any of that happen? Maybe, maybe not, but I'm glad the answer now is "definitely not". The world is a safer, better place without Hussein for a variety of reasons that have been well articulated by Middle East experts, by the media and yes, occasionally by dubya. WMDs used against us and our allies is definitely a possible outcome of leaving Hussein and his sons in power. We can't live out an alternative reality, so we'll never know whether we prevented such use of a WMD and therefore, that debate is now over to all but those who want to sit around saying "Bush lied" for the rest of their lives. Because for all you know, Alexander, the chimp prevented world war three by invading Iraq. The point is, it is now important to focus on geopolitical reasons for maintaining a military presence in Iraq.

[Chris A.]

Is there a 12-step program for people who swallow the Bush lies? :D

[BFrank]

If you're going to attack dubya, at least do it for valid reasons: fiscal irresponsibility, record on the environment, poor foreign diplomacy with our allies.

Thank you.

'nuff said.

[Edward]

Originally posted by Andy D

The US Governemnt talks about the right to freedom and democracy, and yet it has little of this at home and non in terms of its foreign policy.

Yes, we have little freedom or democracy here in the United States :rolleyes: It is funny how so many of you criticize Greg for being a know-it-all, yet completely ignore Andy's asinine statements. Greg's presentations are far more convincing, although that does not mean that I necessarily agree with all of them. Of course, who agrees with anyone ALL of the time?


Originally posted by Andy D

The US has not moved on North Korea nor Iran etc, partly because they pose a greater risk to the US Army, which has a very poor record against organised armies.

Do you also fancy yourself a military historian, Andy D? I do agree that the terrain in Iran is not ideal for armored warfare, and that the size of the DPRK's army would certainly pose difficulties to U.S. forces, although not insurmountable ones. However, aside from the Vietnam War(where meddling politicians greatly inhibited the U.S. military's ability to effectively wage war), in which conflict has the U.S. military fared poorly or lost? Again, you have little idea what you are talking about.


As to the issue at hand, I have opposed the Iraqi incursion from the start due to the difficulties that I knew would be faced in effecting a regime change at war's end. In my cost-benefit analysis, the war has just not been worth it.

[Andy D]

Wow Edward I am impressed by your concern!

Well I fancy myself as JPR Williams and Dusty Hare, well at least sometimes but as a military historian? Mmmm let me see?

I do not give a ...t what the terrain is but what you are doing there in the first place?

North Korean has 'big bombs' nuclear in fact and it is near the South, that bastian of democracy in the region and it is near China, a superpower that the US is concerned about. But of course it ignores it's human rights abuses, it 's military expances because China has big weapons also!!

Edward I suggest you try reading different history books, the US has one of the poorest military records of any country. Most of the countries it attacks are third world and limited, but hey who cares in the media war? So when you invaded Grenada, and a host of countries in South America who where you attacking? A mighty army, or one or two rebal forces that you have no idea what you are doing with.

Andy D.

[Greg]

Originally posted by Andy D
North Korean [sic] has 'big bombs' nuclear in fact and it is near the South, that bastian of democracy in the region and it is near China, a superpower that the US is concerned about. But of course it ignores it's human rights abuses, it 's military expances because China has big weapons also!!

Mmmm. . .big bombs. NK near SK and near China. Human rights abuses. . .fascinating analysis but what does it have to do with Iraq and how does it point to a strategy different than the one we have taken?

Edward I suggest you try reading different history books, the US has one of the poorest military records of any country.

What history book would say that? Please name your source. The U.S. began its history by taking on Britain, which at the time was a superpower. We fought several wars, the most costly of which was the civil war, and took on other superpowers in WWI and WWII. France has a dirty little war going on in the Ivory Coast, but that doesn't seem to bother you whatsoever. You just like spewing anti-American bile.

[Andy D]

Well read Norm Chomsky's books " Deterring Democracy" and
" World Orders, Old and New", or read John Taylor's book
" Indonesia's Forgotten War - The Hidden History of East Timor".

When you read these books let me know and we will go from there!

The simplistic view that you seem to take is that there is no connetion between Iraq and NK etc. And this is the limitation of the US government policy, that it can do what it likes but there are no consequences. The US targeted Iraq as an enemy of the people, yet it ignored the fact that NK decided to start up it's nuclear plants, and that it threatened the South and the whole of the region.

The US went to war on the basis of so called 'intelligence' that Saddam had something to do with Sept 11th, it has ignored the facts that NK, Iran, Saudi Arabia etc have vile human rights records and have been involved in terroist activities .

But hey you have the highest murder rate in the world, the most people in prison ( most of which are black or other ethnic minority). You have the greatest disparity between poor and rich, of any advanced capitalist country!

So what do you care?

Regards

Andy D.

[Edward]

Originally posted by Andy D
Edward I suggest you try reading different history books, the US has one of the poorest military records of any country.

I have been studying military history since elementary school - my sources are fine. Please provide some evidence for your assertion that the U.S. Army "has a very poor record against organised armies." Aside from the Vietnam War, the U.S. military has prevailed in just about every armed struggle it has entered.

Greg and I both voted for Al Gore in the last presidential election, Andy D, so you probably do not have to convince either of us of his failed domestic policies. Of course, I have a feeling that you think that Al Gore is also too far to the right.

[Greg]

Edward, I get the feeling Andy would think any US president is too conservative, unless he ran on the agenda of dismantling the country. Anyone who claims the U.S. is a failed superpower and then asks you to read a book by Chomsky and a book about East Timor to back up the assertion is clearly deranged, and a card-carrying American-hater.

Andy said:
The simplistic view that you seem to take is that there is no connetion [sic] between Iraq and NK etc. And this is the limitation of the US government policy, that it can do what it likes but there are no consequences.

Those two sentences seem totally disconnected. Why don't you put your thoughts back in the oven and let them cook a little longer. Let us know when you have a coherent idea.

The US targeted Iraq as an enemy of the people, yet it ignored the fact that NK decided to start up it's nuclear plants, and that it threatened the South and the whole of the region.

The U.S. has been attempting to engage in diplomacy and spearheading U.N. actions against North Korea at every step of the way. Dubya's mention of NK as one of the three most poblematic states in the world proves that the problems posed by NK have not been "ignored" as you say. And the U.S. has tens of thousands of troops stationed in SK, if I'm not mistaken. Exactly how are we "ignoring" it? Exactly what are you proposing? That we attack NK and risk nuclear war? Or that we treat NK and Iraq the same even though each involves totally different problems and locations. Are you advocating blind "blanket" diplomacy? As I said, you need to think a bit harder about these problems, assuming your ticker ticks (which may not be a correct assumption).

The US went to war on the basis of so called 'intelligence' that Saddam had something to do with Sept 11th,

That may have been what dubya and cheney insinuated, but what any intelligent person can see is that we went to war (yes WE--the U.K. too) for geopolitical reasons because war had been declared against us by elements of the Arab world. The major terror sponsoring states in the region--Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia--will have to cooperate with us if they want to avoid military action. But it was clear that Hussein wouldn't cooperate or temper his hostility. It is also clear that, of all the hostile arab regimes we would like to see improved, taking down Hussein would receive the most support. Invading Iraq was a no-brainer in the war against terror.

it has ignored the facts that NK, Iran, Saudi Arabia etc have vile human rights records and have been involved in terroist activities .

Those facts have not been ignored and the U.S. State Dept has been at the forefront of communicating those human rights records to the world. How does your "observation" point to a different course of action, or suggest in any way the invading Iraq was a wrong course of action? In case you haven't noticed, Iran and Saudi Arabia share a border with Iraq. What are you proposing? That we attack those other countries too?

[gregk]

I cannot believe the name Noam Chomsky has come up in a board full of seemingly intelligent people. It's the end of the world for sure!!!

[Greg]

Did anyone else notice that Andy called him "Norm" Chomsky?! Could it be a typo? The "a" key is not exactly next to the "r" key. More likely Andy is a bit of an ignorant sod. Guess this "Norm" fellow is ok, as long as his books rail on the US. :rolleyes:

[Chris A.]

Norm/Noam--it's an easy mistake to make, but here it is being turned into an issue beyond reason, with all kinds of imagined inferences, as well as justification for infantile name-calling. When people engage in that kind of nit picking (which the exiled poster is prone to do), it is usually a sign of their having nothing of substance to contribute.

:rolleyes:

[Andy D]

Hi Guys.

I have been away running some workshops and I return to see that Norm's name is being mentioned:D

Well a rare voice in the wilderness that is US social, economic and political system. Chomsky presents a different view, that few in America seem to be interested in. It is interesting to see that Michael Moore has taken many of the ideas of Norm Chomsky, and made then attractive! His book 'Stupid White Men' has already become book of the year in the UK.

So do we have any 'Stupid White Men' in the US? ;)

Regards

Andy D.

[Andy D]

I guess the trouble is, well at least in part, is that people rarely read an alternative view! So we delude ourselves that our version of the truth is the truth, and remain closed to other possibilities.

In my work I see many people who are 'closed', not just to the alternative possibilitiues, but also emotionally and cognitively and this creates many difficulties!

Regards

Andy D.

[Andy D]

Well here we are months later and still nothing found, worse still Bin Laden has not been found, and we keep hearing of the deaths of US and UK troops.

And now we have the murder of people in Turkey and many other places. So what is this all about and what are we going to do about it? If we try and forget our different views on the whole conflict, if this is possible, what are we left with?

This was yet another pointless and dubious conflict, in a long line of such things 'invented' by the English and now taken over by the US. It is unproven that weapons existed in the first place, despite all the efforts and all the technology we have little to prove that they are nothing more that the illusions that feed our fears.

In the meantime 'our boys' continue to die in the pointless persuit of democracy, and nations that have no sense of self-identity and for what?

Regards

Andy D.

[Spike]

Originally posted by Andy D
Well here we are months later and still nothing found, worse still Bin Laden has not been found, and we keep hearing of the deaths of US and UK troops.

...So what is this all about and what are we going to do about it?


I personally do not support pulling US/UK troops out of Iraq. While I strongly opposed the invasion, I think we should INCREASE our troops in Iraq until we have created a sufficiently secure situation to permit the creation of a democratic government. But President Bush’s decision to enhance his political prospects in 2004 by setting a firm date for transfer of power to Iraqis is nothing short of a cut-and-run strategy. It gives aid and comfort to Islamic extremists and creates the perfect opening for them to take over Iraq and turn it into a fundamentalist Islamic state. The creation of a radical theocracy in Iraq would destabilize the Middle East and threaten U.S. security far more than Saddam ever did. Bush has totally screwed up the war on terror by focusing on Iraq rather than al Qaeda. In so doing, Bush has played into the hand of the terrorists with his ill-considered and unnecessary war with the result that he has reduced -- not increased -- the security of the American people.

Spike

[Andy D]

I think the problem is that there seems to be no real plan as to what we are attemting to do! We have general ideas of security and handing power over, but no idea how to sustain this. Imposing a system on another country, that has no tradition of this kind of system creates all kinds of problems.

And this is what we are seeing now, in my view increasing tropps will only make the matter worse and make it less lilkely that we will find a resolution to these difficulties.

Regards

Andy D.

[Saundra Hummer]

Originally posted by Andy D
I think the problem is that there seems to be no real plan as to what we are attemting to do! We have general ideas of security and handing power over, but no idea how to sustain this. Imposing a system on another country, that has no tradition of this kind of system creates all kinds of problems.

And this is what we are seeing now, in my view increasing tropps will only make the matter worse and make it less lilkely that we will find a resolution to these difficulties.

Regards

Andy D.

Once we stepped into this quagmire, we are "Damned if we do, and Damned if we don't."

This is one hell of a mess we have gotten ourselve into this time.

I don't see how people of such intelligence, and educated ones at that, could go into the country of Iraq with no more planning, or contingency plans that they went in with. Things have undoubtly gone differently than they planned, and it is easy to see how, and why. How they can be so blind to the issues there is beyond me. I think I myself could have done better in some aspects, and in certain situations than they have done.

Did you see where our armed forces ran over a mans taxi cab with a tank, running over it, time and time again, because a few men were taking some two by fours of varying lengths, about 6 boards, none of which looked to be over 6 feet long, some only being about 3 feet in length, if that long. Maybe the wood was going to be used to cook with, important to their survival, but hey they were looters, and the soldiers were laughing and saying that will teach them to not loot. Never mind that that was probably, as the newsman covering the story stated, the only means of support this man probably had. A little bit of over kill if you ask me, after they allowed so many of Iraqs actual national treasures to be looted right after our invasion.

Actions like this instill very deep hatreds, as do other acts by any soldier of any nation in any occupied country.

These people are hurting when it comes to having the resources to buy food, medicine and fuel, so of course this is going to breed malcontents, and with Saddams men around to foment anarchy, it is bound to happen. Where there weren't terrorists, and Iraq wasn't known for them, we have created them, and outside influences are flocking there to reap what we have sown.

The proverbial "Tiger By The Tail!"

[Andy D]

Saundra.

Intelligence and politics now there is a discussion;)

Either way it is getting increasingly messy, for all those involved, the difficulties of trying to counter terrroism are being show, in the end there is often little that people can do.

What has been happening in Iraq has indeed happened many times before, and the US and the Uk have played significant roles in creating much of the worlds conflicts.

The Chickens have indeed come home to roost!

Regards

Andy D.

[JPW]

Originally posted by Greg

If it was up to Israelis, they would be living side by side with Palestinians.
That would be the aftermath of the 6-day war, the settlements in the occupied territories, the expulsion of Palestinians from Jerusalem, and the massacres of Sabra and Chatila.

[Andy D]

As we have found out on this list before, the language that people use can create conflict, due to the positions that we hold. It is very unlikely that we will convince anyone by using extreme subjective language.

Best to agrue a position and no more.

Regards

Andy D.

[JPW]

Andy, you have a point. I edited the post. OTOH, there really ain't no such thing as objectivity especially in these situations.
Everyone claims to have the objective "truth" on their side, but words are often used to mask actions which in turn hide intentions.
I hope Arabs and Israelis can learn to live together. I think it will take compromise and a degree of pain on both sides before this can happen. Some problems, such as the water situation and Jerusalem seem virtually unsolvable.

[Spike]

Originally posted by Andy D
And this is what we are seeing now, in my view increasing tropps will only make the matter worse and make it less lilkely that we will find a resolution to these difficulties.

Regards

Andy D.

I strongly opposed the invasion in the first place. But our leaders have created such a mess that anarchy will rule if we don't find some way to restore order. If we turn over power to a weak Iraqi government while chaos reigns a full-blown civil war will break out and the outcome could be a government that threatens our security a lot more than Saddam ever did.

Spike

[Andy D]

Spike/JPW

I guess whatever side you take on this, the situation now is getting worse. No real plan, save handing power back to some form of local government, an imposition of a kind of democracy, a well armed and organised resistance and people/troops being killed on a daily basis.

There really is no real 'truth' just very different perspectives and I agree that I hope that all sides can live together. I agree it will take compromise, and on occassions they have almost been there and that is where there is some hope.

As for the water situation, some people feel this is another conflict waiting to happen. The water situation is bad, countries like Syria as well as many others are desperate to maintain there supplies, such as it is and will do whatever they have to do.

Regards

Andy D.

[Saundra Hummer]

It's as if comproimise is something never heard of in Middle East Cultures, and what a pity.

The Arabs are known for their hospitality, but they are also known for their singlemindedness, as are the people of Israel.

How they can have such strict rules about how to honor and treat a guest, then they can turn around and kill that same person in a different setting that doesn't involve their own personal abode. Not being a Middle Easterner, I will never understand their mindset, even if I were to study it. Nor will they understand us. Perhaps Mark Twain had it right.

Too many "Words" and this time words have hurt, the way they have been bandied about, by both sides, too many killings by both. Where it will end, is not in their sights, and I don't think in their collective hearts, there are just not enough people willing to try, and carring enough in large enough numbers to try to end it.

It seems that what both sides want, is for the other to totally dissappear, and this is just not going to happen, but in their minds, or so it seems to me, that if they continue down the paths they have chosen, it surely will. GOOD GRIEF! Objectivity isn't a word they understand, nor is peace, or fairness, not with either side, or so it seems.

I know you are discussing Iraq, but feel that the conflict with Israel and the Palestinians is also at the root of a lot of conflict all over the Middle East. This is what we hear from a majority of the Arab countries, and Muslims around the world.

[Andy D]

I guess there has been attempts at 'joint solutions' in the past, even come close once or twice, but in the end the old issues seem to get in the way.

If you look at what has happened in Northern Ireland, you will see that things can chance. Sure we are not yet in the clear, but both sides had two leaders who took a broader view of the historical stuff, seemed prepared to face the music in their own communities and progress has been made.

I have some people in both camps in the middle east and they all waht the same thing.

Regards

Andy D.

[JPW]

Originally posted by Saundra Hummer
It's as if comproimise is something never heard of in Middle East Cultures, and what a pity.
I'm not sure that is true TBH. But the recreation of the Jewish State and the potent mix of post colonialism (in the shape of Nasser et al), cold-war / post-cold war geopolitics and the regain of what we call Islamic fundamentalism are a truly potent (molotov) cocktail. The Ottoman Empire managed to keep many things swept under the carpet as it where, the huge upheavals of the 20th century allied to the refound economic importance of the region have broken that spell. However, complex threads of tribal, regional and religeous loyalties do remain and do cloud the issue.
I suggest reading Amin Malouf's "The Crusades from the Arab point of view" for an insight into how little things have changed in a thousand years.

[Saundra Hummer]

Originally posted by JPW
I'm not sure that is true TBH. But the recreation of the Jewish State and the potent mix of post colonialism (in the shape of Nasser et al), cold-war / post-cold war geopolitics and the regain of what we call Islamic fundamentalism are a truly potent (molotov) cocktail. The Ottoman Empire managed to keep many things swept under the carpet as it where, the huge upheavals of the 20th century allied to the refound economic importance of the region have broken that spell. However, complex threads of tribal, regional and religeous loyalties do remain and do cloud the issue.
I suggest reading Amin Malouf's "The Crusades from the Arab point of view" for an insight into how little things have changed in a thousand years.

I haven't read the book you mention, but I did read a book about an English woman who was a contemporary of Lawrence of Arabia, and she had a pivotal role in setting up kingdoms and governments in the Mid-East. She forsaw a lot of what is happening now and seemed to understand the Arab, and Muslim mindset. Why she worked so hard for the results we all know don't work so well, was to keep the Turks from taking over the middle East, along with Germany It is complicated and involved, and was a good read, and can't think of the name of the book, or her name, terrible about names for some reason.

I will probably have to order the book as our library's here are small. They may have it now due to all of the problems that have stemmed from the Crusades, Peoples memories about traumatic and violent things are sure long aren't they! They continue to raise bitter and resentful children, and therein lies the problem

[BFrank]

Excellent study just released by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Worth your while to download the PDF and spend some time reading this.

Carnegie Endowment (http://www.ceip.org/)

[JPW]

Thanks for the link BFrank.
THe article on the rise of antiglobalization and how it is linked to anti-semitism is grimly thought-provoking.

[Andy D]

So now we see that the 'out going' expert on the investigation of the weapons, is saying that there are no weapons of mass destruction.

Yet Tony and GW seem to suggest that this is all an illusion, the despot has hidden them in some way, got rid of them all gallons of the stuff!

Welcome to the real world

;)

Regards

Andy D.

[Andy D]

Well Chris illusions can appear to be very real, if you do not question what people like Tony and GW say. It is much easier to accept that the illusion is real than to ask the questions:wink2:

Sometimes the King may not have the fine clothes!

Regards

Andy D.

[Saundra Hummer]

I think it was naive for Tony Blair to trust this administration as fully as it seems he has! Really, how could he not have known some of what is driving the likes of the Bushes and Chenney?

To put his political life on the line for such self seeking men is beyond me! I wouldn't do it for a second, and I have no political ambitions or skills whatsoever!

[Andy D]

It is increasingly clear that the whole basis on which 'we' went to war was based on nothing more that a desire to bring Saddam down, personal strategic interests and a kind of modern crusade view of the world. This crusade 'selects' those tyrants that are a 'thorn in the side' of the US and now the UK, whilst at the same time ignoring others that pose equal and in some cases mopre of a threat.

Tony called it wrong and only he knows why this is, time and time again he has ignored what is clear to many, and decided to side with the US.

Regards

Andy D.

[3pointdeli]

Originally posted by Saundra Hummer
I think it was naive for Tony Blair to trust this administration as fully as it seems he has! Really, how could he not have known some of what is driving the likes of the Bushes and Chenney?

To put his political life on the line for such self seeking men is beyond me! I wouldn't do it for a second, and I have no political ambitions or skills whatsoever!

he's got a job lined up with the carlyle group. who cares about their political life being on the line when you've got a multimillion dollar job waiting for you?

anyone want to make a $100 bet.

[Andy D]

Politicians lined up for top jobs never:wink2:

Tony will be ok and he has increasingly become detached from the public view. The recent debate over Higher Education illustrates what sort of PM he has become. Increasingly desperate not to loose a vote and remain in control, and those MP's who changed their mind should hangs their heads in shame.

But hey this is why we have one of the lowest vote turnouts in Europe, and people are more interested in the size of Jordan's breasts than politics;)

Regards

Andy D.

[Saundra Hummer]

So maybe they all have learned from R.R. He let our country be flooded with electronics from Japan, and then when out of office, ran to that country to give a speech for $3,000,000.00. In the end they said it came to over $10,000,000.00. How much more I would be interested in knowing.

Of course he was never able to enjoy that bounty, nor was Nancy. Luckily the Japanese do make a good product most of the time, but it forced a lot of our own manufacturers of electronics out of business.

[JPW]

Originally posted by Saundra Hummer
Luckily the Japanese do make a good product most of the time, but it forced a lot of our own manufacturers of electronics out of business.
This isn't really true. The Japanese made better product for slightly less, and consumers were not slow to realize this.
Much as I dislike RR (and MT), it was under RR that the 1985 "plaza accord" revaluation of the Yen was signed. This ensured the value of the Yen against the USD would soar from about 220:1 in 1985 to about 120:1 by 1988.
It was a catastrophic and short-sighted agreement, the shock waves of which are still being felt here, and which did nothing to protect the largely fictive US consumer electronics industry.
The Chinese have learned the lessons from that and will not revalue the yuan. They have a strongish hand, too.

[Saundra Hummer]

Nothing surprising is there? The arrogance and self-fullfilling attitudes of this administration is overwhelming, even though they are doing exactely what we thought they would do when the court elected them. Not a surprise at all, but what is surprising is their devil may care attitude, they don't give a tinkers damn about any of this being above board, or what anyone thinks, as long as everything goes their way, and so far they are as happy as can be.

I would like to know when someone in government will have the wherewithall to stand up to this administration and challange them sucessfully! Where are the judges that have our country's best interest at heart, not their own political agenda, not their own persona, like having gold stripes sewn onto your robe to draw attention to ones self. It has been an amazing time hasn't it?

I would just like to know what Paul Krugman's thoughts are on Dick Chenney's meeting in private with eneregy company CEO's to work out an energy policy for this country.

After the California crisis, I would think that the minutes of those meetings should be made public. I don't believe that the courts should interfere. We need to know who planned what.

We of course can imagine the worst, and a lot of us do, so if there were no conspiratorial discusions and agreements as to how to make a killing financially, then we need to know that too. As it is, we think there were, and if so, where are the impeachement processes? If there were plans devised by Chenney and the energy company executives, then heads should roll. If there weren't, then we need to be able to stop thinking there were. I just doubt that it is all something that can be brought into the light.

[Saundra Hummer]

Just an observation, and a comment.

They say George Bush is out of contact with what is going on with the American People, Foreign Policy, Terrorism, Fiscal Policy, etc.

Why are we not surprised by all of this? We have a President, who by his own admission doesn't read, watch television or any number of things that would keep him connected to the outside world he is so insulated againt.

We read to find out what it is the administration is doing, we watch news programs and t.v. news magazines, we have a wide range of people we talk to. I feel the President had better start doing the same to find out what the people in his very own administration are doing, what it is the people around him are doing, as he is being led by the nose by any number of his advisors and coherts. These people seem too bright to be led about themselves. To me this seems to be a huge problem, and one that is coming back to haunt all of us.