The Gloves Are Off: Bush Links Iraq, Al Qaeda
	found on Yahoo written by dylanr, edited by Peter (Plastic) [ read unedited ] posted Sat 28 Sep 2:13am
		Apparently frustrated by international resistance and the pace of our allies' deliberations, the Bush Administration may finally have played their political trump card. No longer is Saddam just an evildoer, a petty UN nose-thumber, nor a mere WMD-weilding menace. No, he's worse... now he's an open supporter of Al Qaeda. It boggles the mind to think that the case for attacking Iraq has been over a year in the making and Iraq's ties to Bin Laden are only being mentioned now, just as the tide may be beginning to turn against intervention.

	But how reliable is this information? Tough to say, of course... none of us will get to see it. And some sceptics like the Russian foreign minister, Igor Ivanov, have already rejected British and US attempts to link Iraq with the al-Qaida terrorist network. But Condi Rice did note that it was largely sourced from captured Al Qaeda members... you know, the ones with no rights who may or may not actually have any idea what they are talking about. If the twists and turns in our case against Iraq has left you confused or perplexed, take heart. No matter how many times politicians may change their minds, some things do remain constant in the American political landscape; whatever happens next in Iraq, it'll probably lead to another round of airline bailouts. Addendum from Philosawyer:

[ more plastic... ]    

show almost all: 67 commentsbest: 9 comments by oldest first (ignore threads) newest first highest scores first oldest first newest first (ignore threads)

1.  Yes, let's wait for more 20-20 hindsight   by Brian Jones       at Sat 28 Sep 3:22am score of 1 disingenuous     Want to wait? Skeptical? Fair enough...but here's the promise I'd like from US politicians: ...if you're hemming and hawing now, don't be parading yourselves before the cameras at yet another set of what-went-wrong hearings two years from now. Dan Henninger puts it better: Let's see if I understand this correctly. We all now think that we could have known that al Qaeda was going to drive civilian airliners into American buildings or some such, and we probably knew enough to prevent these deaths from happening. But the same people who say the danger was obvious also say and write that we don't yet know enough about Iraq's military capabilities or intentions to act pre-emptively against Saddam Hussein. Cheap crass attention-whoring plug goes here.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

2.  Re: Yes, let's wait for more 20-20 hindsight   by uhlume       at Sat 28 Sep 4:18am score of 3.5 brilliant   in reply to comment 1     Your comparison is disingenuous, to say the least. On the one hand, we have a situation wherein existing and incoming intelligence on potential al-Qaeda terrorist activity was systematically mishandled, or ignored outright, by top-level intelligence officials. On the other, we have a series of unsubstantiated and factually-challenged allegations by US State Department officials designed to bolster the failing case for a US military action against Iraq. If there indeed exists credible intelligence to support the administration's claims, it has yet to be produced. The parallelism you seem to find implicit in these two situations frankly escapes me.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   13.  Re: Yes, let's wait for more 20-20 hindsight   by Damien07       at Sat 28 Sep 12:11pm score of 1.5 compelling   in reply to comment 2     I believe you are missing the guiding principle behind all of the Administration's actions since Sept 11 2001. The point is to not merely punish those responsible, but to prevent the next one. An attack on Iraq lessens the chance of a second attack substantially by (1) eliminating a regime with a history of support for terrorism (eg. money to "martyrs" on the West Bank) and (2) establishing a precedent and sizeable U.S. presence in the region. Iraq borders Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia, three states with lengthy histories of supporting terrorism. These folks are much more likely to contain their activities with U.S. marines on their borders. There is another facet of the proposed attack that is commonly overlooked. Are we just to abandon millions of Iraqis to life under this homicidal maniac? Even if Iraq had no history of procuring and using weapons of mass destruction, and was innocent of any terrorist links, the attack would still be morally justified. He is a vicious, evil thug, whose treatment of his own people precludes him from deference by the civilized world.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   22.  Re: Yes, let's wait for more 20-20 hindsight   by adamrice       at Sat 28 Sep 2:26pm score of 1   in reply to comment 2     In all fairness, the link you point to has Rummy of Defense, not State playing loose with the facts. Which is not to say that State might not be doing the same. I look at Colin Powell sometimes and imagine I see an honorable man who is unwillingly pimping the bad ideas of his boss, for reasons I don't understand. if irony were made of strawberries, we'd all be drinking a lot of smoothies right now.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   28.  Re: Yes, let's wait for more 20-20 hindsight   by PhooeyPapa       at Sat 28 Sep 5:42pm score of 1 obnoxious   in reply to comment 2     This debate continues to amaze me, we have all these people saying oh no don't be mean and attack Iraq. When he gets all of his chemical weapons and other capabilities intact and uses them on neighboring countries, I can hear it now "why didn't somebody step in and prevent all of this?" Anybody who does not think this guy is a tyrant and needs to be removed from power is way out of touch with reality and their idea of a peaceful and wonderful world. "Goodnight Mrs. Calabash Wherever you are."   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   44.  Re: Yes, let's wait for more 20-20 hindsight   by infomaniac       at Sun 29 Sep 10:31am score of 0.5 obnoxious   in reply to comment 2     If you could make things better by using violence marxism would have worked. I can't believe you guys want to go to war! Get a grip. I think that this may be the last gasp of conservatism, not that you won't rise again. You always do. Is there a bigger stupidity than thinking one country can rule another better than it can rule its self? Where do you guys come from? The stone age? No, something can be done," Atta replied. "There are ways. The U.S.A. is not omnipotent."   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   59.  And just how do you know all this for a fact?   by marlowe2       at Mon 30 Sep 6:15am score of 1   in reply to comment 2     On either side of the comparison? Skepticism is one thing. Selective skepticism is another. Proudly intolerant of idiocy http://tuxedo.org/~esr/aim/   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   18.  Re: Yes, let's wait for more 20-20 hindsight   by ThePlague       at Sat 28 Sep 2:06pm score of 1   in reply to comment 13     So, we have to destroy Iraq to save it? Intelligent chat: PhiloChat   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   20.  Sure   by jbou       at Sat 28 Sep 2:24pm score of 1.5 brilliant   in reply to comment 13     Occupation of a country has stopped guerrilla warfare in the past? and that's what terrorists are guerrilla warriors. Don't fool yourself into believing that occupying Iraq will change anything, remember we already have a base in Saudi Arabia, and that doesn't stop them from giving money to the terrorists. Arguments have no chance against petrified training; they wear it as little as the waves wear a cliff.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   21.  Re: Yes, let's wait for more 20-20 hindsight   by GodSpiral       at Sat 28 Sep 2:24pm score of 1 nuanced   in reply to comment 13     Are we just to abandon millions of Iraqis to life under this homicidal maniac? Glad to see you give a shit about iraqis. I guess if this is a major concern of yours, you'll defer any action to the results of a gallup poll of iraqis on their eagerness to be bombed. My guess is they'd feel just as you. Their corrupt government should be ousted through different means. eliminating a regime with a history of support for terrorism (eg. money to "martyrs" on the West Bank) That's a pretty good explanation for why Israel wants the regime eliminated. establishing a precedent and sizeable U.S. presence in the region. Iraq borders Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia, three states with lengthy histories of supporting terrorism. These folks are much more likely to contain their activities with U.S. marines on their borders. That looks good on paper. Plus what you really mean, is a platform for invading/regime change for Iran and Saudi Arabia. A satisfactory oil flow would most likely go to the US without this intervention. But, if the argument is that we need to control this oil for our survival/advancement, then make that argument. But believing whatever facts you come up with to justify that, is going to be hard to accept, considering the crap that Hussein and AQ are now best buddies. All Calculating American Satanists are Evangelical Christians   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   26.  Re: Yes, let's wait for more 20-20 hindsight   by uhlume       at Sat 28 Sep 5:14pm score of 1   in reply to comment 22     You are correct, of course: that should have read, "unsubstantiated and factually-challenged allegations by US State Department and DoD officials..." My bad for drafting a response at 4:00 in the morning.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   29.  Re: Sure   by Damien07       at Sat 28 Sep 6:31pm score of 1   in reply to comment 20     Occupying Iraq will not halt terrorism, but it will certainly deter other STATES from sponsoring terrorism. In addition, it will takes weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of a sociopathic lunatic with no compunction about using them. Except for the financial cost, I really see no downside of an invasion of Iraq.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   30.  Re: Yes, let's wait for more 20-20 hindsight   by Damien07       at Sat 28 Sep 6:49pm score of 1   in reply to comment 18     No, we have to destroy the REGIME to save Iraq, to deter other states from similar adventurism, and to remove weapons of mass destruction from a psychotic monster. Of course there will be collateral civilian casualties, however consider the cost in lives if this malignant regime is left free to pursue its aims.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   31.  This is from The Nation mag....   by jbou       at Sat 28 Sep 7:01pm score of 1   in reply to comment 29     it helps sum up how I feel about going to war with Iraq. Here is a link to the whole letter. The case against the war is simple, clear and strong. The Administration calls it a chapter in the war on terror, but Iraq has no demonstrated ties either to the September 11 attack on the United States or to the Al Qaeda network that launched it. The aim of the war is to deprive President Saddam Hussein of weapons of mass destruction, but the extent of his program for building these weapons, if it still exists, is murky. Still less clear is any intention on his part to use such weapons. To do so would be suicide, as he well knows. Democratic Representative Anna Eshoo of California has reported that in closed session Administration officials have been asked several times whether they have evidence of an imminent threat from Saddam against the United States and have answered no. She elaborated, "Not 'no, but' or 'maybe,' but 'no.'" On the other hand, if he does have them, and faces his overthrow and possible death at the hands of US forces, he might well use them--or, more likely, give them to terrorist groups to use after his fall. He may be doing so even now. Some observers have likened the resolution under discussion to the Gulf of Tonkin resolution of 1964 authorizing President Johnson to use force in Vietnam. But that was passed only after a report was received of two attacks on US naval forces. (We now know that the first attack was provoked by a prior secret American attack and the second was nonexistent.) The new resolution, which alleges no attack, not even a fictional one, goes a step further. It is a Tonkin Gulf resolution without a Tonkin Gulf incident. Even if Saddam possesses weapons of mass destruction and wishes to use them, a policy of deterrence would appear perfectly adequate to stop him, just as it was adequate a half-century ago to stop a much more fearsome dictator, Joseph Stalin. It is not true that military force is the only means of preventing the proliferation of these weapons, whether to Iraq or other countries. An alternative path is clearly available. In the short run it passes through the United Nations and its system of inspections, now more promising than before because Iraq, responding to US pressure, has opened itself unconditionally to inspectors. At the very least, this path should be fully explored before military action--the traditional last resort--is even considered. Such a choice in favor of multilateralism, diplomacy and treaty agreements should be part of a much broader policy of nonproliferation and disarmament of the kind that has already enjoyed great success over the past several decades. Under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, for example, 182 nations have agreed to do without nuclear weapons. The larger issue is whether proliferation--not just to Iraq but to many other countries as well--is best addressed by military or political means. Arguments have no chance against petrified training; they wear it as little as the waves wear a cliff.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   32.  and another thing...   by jbou       at Sat 28 Sep 7:18pm score of 1   in reply to comment 29     didn't us getting rid of the Taliban in an orderly fashion show the rest of the world that we mean business. Pakistan has helped arrest terrorists, Turkey stopped a group of guys with plutonium today, Spain has arrested terrorists linked to Al Qeada, I think the rest of the world got picture after what happened in Afghanistan, attacking Iraq serves no purpose other then to get revenge for Bush sr's mistake, and give US companies an in to the Iraqi oil. I'm sorry I'm not willing to lose American millitary lives over something that can be settled differently. Arguments have no chance against petrified training; they wear it as little as the waves wear a cliff.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   38.  OT Re: and another thing...   by Atlasshrugged00       at Sun 29 Sep 4:40am score of 1   in reply to comment 32     It irritates me to no end when people refer to Bush Sr.s efforts in Iraq as a mistake. Bush Sr had a UN mandate and a coalition set to do one thing, liberate Kuwait. He did not have a coalition or mandate to go to Baghdad and eliminate Hussein. Yes I wish he had (and I wished he had gone all the way back in 91 when it happened). But ultimately he fulfilled his goals and agreements with the coalition members. Had he gone the distance and eliminated Hussein et al then...well, that is when we would have had all kinds of charges of imperialism and hegemony and immorality, etc. Remember it was in no small part due to weak stomached Americans that we stopped the ground war at 100 hrs in the first place. The vision of the "Highway of Death" was just too much to bear. Bush Sr. did what he had to do at the time and showed remarkable restraint. Yes, in hindsight we all WISH he had gone further....but then again that's why they call it hindsight, and we don't know what effects that alternate timeline would have carried. So deal with it.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   41.  Re: Yes, let's wait for more 20-20 hindsight   by strumbucket       at Sun 29 Sep 8:10am score of 1   in reply to comment 13     These folks are much more likely to contain their activities with U.S. marines on their borders. guess somebody forgot to spread the word about this in beirut back in '82... got bodybags?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   42.  Re: Yes, let's wait for more 20-20 hindsight   by strumbucket       at Sun 29 Sep 8:13am score of 1   in reply to comment 30     No, we have to destroy the REGIME to save Iraq, to deter other states from similar adventurism, and to remove weapons of mass destruction from a psychotic monster. So when do we get regime change here? got bodybags?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   43.  read the link...   by jbou       at Sun 29 Sep 8:57am score of 1   in reply to comment 38     and you'll know why Saddam is Daddy Bushs mistake. Here is an exerpt of from the story, ABC News Nightline opened last June 9 with words to make the heart stop. "It is becoming increasingly clear," said a grave Ted Koppel, "that George Bush, operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980s, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam's Iraq into the aggressive power that the United States ultimately had to destroy." Is this accurate? Just about every reporter following the story thinks so. Most say that the so-called Iraqgate scandal is far more significant then either Watergate or Iran-contra, both in its scope and its consequences. And all believe that, with investigations continuing, it is bound to get bigger. Arguments have no chance against petrified training; they wear it as little as the waves wear a cliff.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   47.  Re: Yes, let's wait for more 20-20 hindsight   by Damien07       at Sun 29 Sep 1:44pm score of 0.5 obnoxious   in reply to comment 42     ..spineless traitor....   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   48.  Re: and another thing...   by Damien07       at Sun 29 Sep 4:48pm score of 1   in reply to comment 32     A rogue state can sponsor terrorism all it likes if it is able to make itself invulnerable to an attack by the West. If Saddam is able to build a nuclear arsenal, he can sponsor terrorism all he likes without fear of the type of invasion Afghanistan saw. If the Taliban had nuclear weapons, they would still be sitting comfortably in Kabul thumbing their noses at the West. Saddam must be stopped. Now. Another thing that is starting to grate is this assumption an attack on Iraq would represent an effort to secure Iraqi oil fields for U.S. interests. If seizing oil were a REAL U.S. strategic interest, they would never have left Kuwait after the Gulf War. They could seize the oil fields of Venezuela or Angola more readily. It really doesn't matter who owns the oil. The only thing that any owner can do with it is to SELL it on the international market. The West will always have access to this oil; the owner can only profit from it by selling it.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   49.  Re: Yes, let's wait for more 20-20 hindsight   by BatGuano       at Sun 29 Sep 4:54pm score of 1   in reply to comment 47     Yikes! You just broke Goodwin's Law, Damien07. Put your hands above your head and repeat after me: "A traitor is someone who willingly works for the distruction of his country, someone who knowingly betrays his country." your radio friend, Bat Guano   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   50.  Re: and another thing...   by jbou       at Sun 29 Sep 5:22pm score of 1   in reply to comment 48     Seems Bush has been lying about the probability of Iraq having nukes. Oil is not the only reason the US is going to war with Iraq, but you can't ignore the fact either. Saddam is a mess our government created, and the only justification I can see for taking Saddam out is the US gov is cleaning up it's own mess. Arguments have no chance against petrified training; they wear it as little as the waves wear a cliff.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   52.  Re: and another thing...   by Damien07       at Sun 29 Sep 6:36pm score of 0.5 disingenuous   in reply to comment 50     Saddam is not a "mess the U.S. created". He is a monster who rose out of the brutal internal politics of the Baath Party in Iraq during the 1970's. The U.S. did covertly provide intelligence and material support to the regime during the 1980's, to contain Iran's malignant theocracy. This is not the same as "creating" Saddam. They also failed to finish him off in 1991 - not the same as creating him either. Is Bush lying about Iraq having nukes? No - he's never said they HAVE nukes. He's said the are close to developing such weapons. As you may remember, in a statement to the House of Commons on the 24th, Tony Blair said HIS intelligence concludes that Iraq may already have built a crude nuclear weapon (unlike the U.S., the U.K. has access to first rate human intelligence on the ground in Iraq). Saddam simply must be stopped, and stopped before it's too late.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   53.  Re: Yes, let's wait for more 20-20 hindsight   by porges       at Sun 29 Sep 10:27pm score of 1   in reply to comment 49     Yeesh..that link doesn't know it's Godwin's Law, not Goodwin's Law.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   55.  Re: Yes, let's wait for more 20-20 hindsight   by Damien07       at Sun 29 Sep 11:12pm score of 1   in reply to comment 44     You are hopelessly naive. Used effectively, OF COURSE violence can make things better. If not for the very effective use of force back in the 1940's, Hitler's death camps would still be open for business. Also, it is patently obvious that "other countries" have historically ruled some places better than the locals. Look at sub-Saharan Africa. Do you honestly believe that the thugs currently running most of these little tin-pot hell-holes are doing a better job that the British or French colonial administrations? Do you believe Hitler was running Germany more effectively that the Allied occupiers? As for Iraq, ANY change would be an improvement for the beleaguered populace. However, a war on Iraq would not be merely to see that the country is ruled better (although that would be an inevitable consequence) - it is about SELF DEFENCE. Once Saddam acquires nuclear weapons, he will be able to run terrorist camps under the noses of the West - confident no one would dare try to remove him. Would you really prefer to wait for that day?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   57.  Re: Yes, let's wait for more 20-20 hindsight   by paul_holloway       at Mon 30 Sep 6:06am score of 1   in reply to comment 13     I believe you are missing the guiding principle behind all of the Administration's actions since Sept 11 2001. The point is to not merely punish those responsible, but to prevent the next one. And the way to do that is to kill all the Arabs?!? Think about what you are suggesting for heaven's sake! "Iraqis are sick of foreign people coming in their country and trying to destabilise their country" - guess who   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   58.  Re: Sure   by paul_holloway       at Mon 30 Sep 6:09am score of 1   in reply to comment 29     Except for the financial cost, I really see no downside of an invasion of Iraq. I am guessing that you don't live in Baghdad, do you? "Iraqis are sick of foreign people coming in their country and trying to destabilise their country" - guess who   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   60.  Re: Yes, let's wait for more 20-20 hindsight   by paul_holloway       at Mon 30 Sep 6:16am score of 1   in reply to comment 55     My God, Damien07. Just come out and say it - the thought of attacking Iraq gives you a hard on. It seems that no amount of reasoning works with you, you still cling to the belief that if we don't attack Iraq right now it will be the end of the Western world. If SH got nukes and started running terrorist camps in the belief that nukes made him immune from attack, he would very quickly discover that it just ain't the case. There is NO WAY that Iraq could ever threaten the strongest military nation in the world, NO WAY. "Iraqis are sick of foreign people coming in their country and trying to destabilise their country" - guess who   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   62.  Re: Yes, let's wait for more 20-20 hindsight   by Hamar       at Mon 30 Sep 8:48am score of 1   in reply to comment 28     Just a thought. Have you ever asked this question. Where did Saddam get his scud missiles and the chemicals to put in them? The answer is simple. From the country which exports the most of all weapons. THE US OF A. Why stop at this question. I have another one. Where did Saddam get the intelligence information on which targets to drop his bombs in the Iran-Iraq war for example. Again the answer is quite simple. From the US of A or the CIA to be exact. Ask your self where did the trouble start. Who gave Saddam the means to be a bully and who benefitted from his decisions   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   64.  Get your facts straight   by sglover910       at Mon 30 Sep 10:10am score of 1   in reply to comment 62     > Where did Saddam get his scud missiles and the chemicals to put in them? > The answer is simple. From the country which exports the most of all weapons. THE US OF A. Scuds are Russian missles. In general, the Iraqi armed forces are equipped with French and Russian (more precisely, old Soviet) weapons. On a somewhat related note, I think there are many reasons to have profound doubts about American policies toward Iraq. But given their happy readiness to sell arms to Hussein, French and Russian "moral objections" to sanctions or (yikes) war should be taken with a big rock of salt. Of course, by the same token, our outrage is a tad suspect as well..... An argument isn't merely nay-sayings and contradictions! M. Python   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   65.  Re: Yes, let's wait for more 20-20 hindsight   by Damien07       at Mon 30 Sep 11:07am score of 1   in reply to comment 60     "Reasoning" would "work" with me if you attempted to exercise some. Asserting I have a hard-on however does not advance your argument. Given your livy-livered attitude, perhaps you are fixating on the state of my genitals because you are incapable of maintaining a comparable state? Just a thought.... Picture this: Saddam finishes construction on a nuclear weapon. He sends a video to the white house showing the weapon in Chicago (for example), then invades Kuwait, or sets up al-Qaeda at the Al-Rashid hotel in Baghdad. The implication? If you attempt to interfere, we will destroy an American city. What administration would dare risk the loss of perhaps five million citizens? Yes. If the weapon were detonated, the U.S. would respond - and one might think the tenants of Mutually Assured Destruction would keep Saddam in line. It would IF HE WERE RATIONAL. However, do you really think it advisable to premise U.S. security on Saddam Hussein's mental health? He needs to be put out of action NOW, before he gets the means to blackmail U.S. policy-makers.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   66.  Re: Yes, let's wait for more 20-20 hindsight   by Damien07       at Mon 30 Sep 11:56am score of 1   in reply to comment 57     Mr. Holloway: I am not suggesting it is necessary to "kill all the Arabs" - just one in particular, a notoriously dangerous mustached loonie of notoriously vicious disposition. It may be necessary to kill some of the mustache's ardent and armed supporters (Republican Guard, Iraqi Army, Barbara Streissand etc.). Regrettable, but necessary.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   67.  Re: OT Re: and another thing...   by druhim       at Mon 30 Sep 12:55pm score of 1   in reply to comment 38     You might want to actually read the article you're criticizing before you get on your soapbox. The article actually deals with Bush Sr's involvement in arming Saddam before he became a problem child. You know what they say about assuming, it makes an ass out of you.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   68.  Re: Yes, let's wait for more 20-20 hindsight   by wrand       at Mon 30 Sep 5:07pm score of 1   in reply to comment 13     There is some validity to that argument. But I think an equally compelling argument could be made that invading Iraq -- especially if there is no international coalition supporting U.S. action -- would increase the chance of terrorism. And if the Administration's "guiding principle" is to prevent future terrorism then why are we basically abandoning the fight against al Quaeda to focus in on a nation that has been laying low in recent years? There are plenty of reasons to put the squeeze on Iraq (and many other countries) but our cowboy tactics could get us in a deep pile of cow dung (to try and continue the imagery.) Unless the Administration has decided to play the "bad cop" which would be a pretty sly move (assuming they've worked it out with some European leaders.) Takes him 1.5 hours to watch "60 Minutes".   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   69.  Re: Yes, let's wait for more 20-20 hindsight   by paul_holloway       at Tue 1 Oct 1:16am score of 1   in reply to comment 65     It would IF HE WERE RATIONAL. However, do you really think it advisable to premise U.S. security on Saddam Hussein's mental health? He needs to be put out of action NOW, before he gets the means to blackmail U.S. policy-makers. Saddsam Hussein is bad, that is agreed. However, he certainly is not mad. In Gulf War 1 he did not use his WMD after being told that he would face a nuclear response - that is the rational thing to do, even when you are well beaten. You do not maintain power in a nation for as long and as securely as SH has if you are mentally unstable. His ruthlessness is well know, but it is a calculated ruthlessness, rather than the dictatorial equivalent of pulling the legs off spiders. As for your fantasy about bombs in Chicago - if you are willing to base foreign policy on fantasy, you are the one who needs his head examined. "Iraqis are sick of foreign people coming in their country and trying to destabilise their country" - guess who   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   73.  Re: Yes, let's wait for more 20-20 hindsight   by Damien07       at Tue 1 Oct 11:14pm score of 1   in reply to comment 69     You may be prepared to premise your contined survival on this planet to the murky machinations in the mind of Saddam, but I certainly am not. You state that despite SH's evil, he is RATIONAL. This argument however does not square with some of his behaviour. Remember back in 1992 when he was implicated in the plot to assasinate George Bush Sr. when the ex-Prez went to Kuwait to accept an award? An act of pointless but spectacular violence that could only have resulted in massive U.S. retaliation had it succeeded. Saddam is a nut who enjoys pointless, spectacular violence that endangers HIMSELF. Do you really think he's to be trusted with nuclear weapons? This penchant for pointless violence was also obvious with his conduct in Kuwait. He set the country ON FIRE as he retreated, and took the time to poison the Persian Gulf with a massive oil spill. My "fantasy" about a mushroom cloud over Chicago will, God willing, remain just fantasy IF nuclear weapons are kept out of the hands of filth like Saddam. Honestly, the blase attitude I continue to run into with regard to the Iraqi situation is absolutely mystifying. A homicidal maniac wants a nuclear weapon, and everyone just yawns...   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   74.  Re: Get your facts straight   by Hamar       at Wed 2 Oct 5:19am score of 1   in reply to comment 64     Sorry for that "scud" thingy: But my point was this. It is a well known fact that the USA has sold weapons and missiles to ANYONE who has the money. They have sponsored state terror all over the world for the last 50 years. So instead of trying to solve the problems which have become of US foreign policy. By military power and kill even more people, and in the mean time make even more people hate America and the West. They really should consider changing their foreign policy. Because it really looks to me like (maybe not intentionally) that everything that American foreign policy touches turns to a pile of dead body´s and a whole lot of suffering for some unlucky people.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   3.  Another spin on this one.   by MAYORBOB       at Sat 28 Sep 5:42am score of 1   in reply to comment 1     The same people who we are told managed to overlook and disregard credible information regarding the threat posed by some determined international terrorists are now saying, ala Joe Isuzu, "we have the proof that Saddam has some really bad shit ready to go, trust us." The administration is obviously going to do what it's going to do. For myself, I would prefer to have a bit more compelling evidence than admissions wrung out of people who have been held incommunicado for the past half year. Tending to final details.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   4.  Re: Yes, let's wait for more 20-20 hindsight   by GodSpiral       at Sat 28 Sep 6:08am score of 1   in reply to comment 1     We all now think that we could have known that al Qaeda was going to drive civilian airliners into American buildings or some such The clues for that included that they declared war, intend for america to be destroyed, and were making attacks on US interests. we don't yet know enough about Iraq's military capabilities or intentions to act pre-emptively against Saddam Hussein. We know plenty. They have drastically little military capability to invade any place, and no intention. The same theoretical possibility of harm, combined with equal paranoid cowardice can justify invading France. Hell, they say you smell. Welcome to a dangerous world. Rather than spread your chicken-shit fears onto every other American, and make the world even more dangerous (or dead), address real threats, and work to reduce tensions before they become threats. All Calculating American Satanists are Evangelical Christians   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   15.  Re: Yes, let's wait for more 20-20 hindsight   by bashibazouk       at Sat 28 Sep 12:37pm score of 1   in reply to comment 4     Ah. No. There is this little thing called mutually assured destruction that will prevent the US from ever invading France regardless how the political wind blows. They have the nukes and the advanced delivery systems to do it.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   51.  Perhaps every nation   by irritablbowelboy       at Sun 29 Sep 6:05pm score of 1   in reply to comment 15     . . . should have nukes and delivery systems, just in cast political winds start blowing their way. America is strongest when we act in accordance with our ideals.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   11.  Hindsight indeed   by sglover910       at Sat 28 Sep 11:22am score of 1.5 nuanced   in reply to comment 1     Some Republicans are either implying or directly asserting that because of Clinton's indifference to security and foreign policy, we have to rush into an Iraq adventure right now. Yet they were quite blase' about an Iraqi threat only a few years ago. Here's an interesting article from today's Washington Post (sorry, it spawns pop-ups). It's an editorial, and it's written by a Democratic senator. Still, those caveats aside, it has some very interesting remarks from Trent Lott, in 1998: "I had hoped that we could get to the point where we could pass a resolution this week on Iraq. But we really developed some physical problems, if nothing else. . . . So we have decided that the most important thing is not to move so quickly but to make sure that we have had all the right questions asked and answered and that we have available to us the latest information about what is . . . happening with our allies in the world. I think it's legitimate to use military force in the name of nuclear nonproliferation -- it's consistent with the notion of collective security. But the way the administration has approached this thing makes it very, very difficult for me to actually believe them. It reeks of equal parts political ploy and ideological fixation. An argument isn't merely nay-sayings and contradictions! M. Python   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   24.  And that's what I don't want   by Brian Jones       at Sat 28 Sep 2:53pm score of 1   in reply to comment 11     Your guy knew in '98! Oh yeah? Your guy knew in '91! Did not! Did too! Ow! Stop politicizing! You started it! This is one of those times when, regarding Congress, the term "fuckwits" leaps to the front of my mind. Now, regarding Dayton...he's managed to sound like much less of a ninny than Daschle and Gore. So far, so good. But the desire to put off a vote until after the election is always going to smack of the desire for self-preservation. Dayton himself isn't up for re-election for another four years, so he can afford to play the reasonable man. If the Senate Democrats wish to portray themselves as capable leaders, let them allow this vote before the election. Perhaps it could be drawn up in such a way that our long-term com mitment to a democratic Iraq would be guaranteed in advance, at least as well as such a thing can be guaranteed. Treat the voters like grown-ups, and if it turns out the Democrats were right to be cautious, the swing voters will remember it in 2004 -- unless that shape-shifter Gore gets the nomination. Much as I myself lean toward believing we're going to be going into Iraq sooner or later, I don't like it being assumed that the average American wants merely to bomb the first gang of swarthies who looks at us funny. Oh -- and Trent Lott is a tool. Maybe he and Daschle could get together on something useful, like passing a budget on time for a change. Deadline's Tuesday. Cheap crass attention-whoring plug goes here.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   27.  Re: And that's what I don't want   by sglover910       at Sat 28 Sep 5:24pm score of 1   in reply to comment 24     > This is one of those times when, regarding Congress, the term "fuckwits" leaps to the front of my mind. Too true. And much as it pains me to say it, my own team is leading the way. Daschle's tactical weasel behavior's been simply vile; it's hard to take his recent spasms of righteous indignation too seriously. That said, I don't think it's fair to bash Gore about this issue. Sure he panders, but I think his record demonstrates more consistent awareness of national and collective security issues than most of the flag-wrapped gasbags appearing on TeeVee these days. An argument isn't merely nay-sayings and contradictions! M. Python   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

5.  Father and Son   by Chachee       at Sat 28 Sep 6:13am score of 1.5 succinct     It appears George Bush started this "war" and the Dubbya will end it.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

6.  Let me get this right.   by 15min       at Sat 28 Sep 6:26am score of 2 novel     Iraq probably has WMD, if not nukes, then at least replenished chem and bio. They also have been running daycamps for al-Qa'ida. Yet they used airplanes rather than bio or chem to attack the US. Doesn't it make sense, not to go to war with a country that will provide terrorists with WMD in order to defend itself. The administration has been pushing the idea that it doesn't count as preemption if there is the imminent threat of attack. Does this apply the other way around as well? 'Cause it sure seems a lot more likely right now that we will attack Iraq rather than that Iraq will attack the US. And, as an aside, anyone want to take guesses how long it will be before the FBI "finds out" that Saddam sent the anthrax letters himself.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

12.  Re: Let me get this right.   by moof1138       at Sat 28 Sep 11:38am score of 1.5 brilliant   in reply to comment 6     A quote in the Onion's 'What do you think' this week summed it up: "It's clear to me that nothing short of war will stop Iraq from using its weapons." Bene agere et laetari   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

8.  Bush unable to distinguish Iraq and al Qaeda   by Philosawyer       at Sat 28 Sep 8:09am score of 4 astute     I am not sure if this was the intended "Addendum" or not, but our President claims the inability to see any real difference between the two: "The war on terror, you can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror. And so it's a comparison that is -- I can't make because I can't distinguish between the two, because they're both equally as bad, and equally as evil, and equally as destructive" This inability to distinguish between the two reflects Bush's simplistic explanation of the whole problem: Bush "Explains" Terrorism as Love v. Hate It's very important for the school children here to listen to what I'm about to say. You're probably wondering why America is under attack. And you need to know why. We're under attack because we love freedom, is why we're under attack. And our enemy hates freedom. They hate and we love. "Love" + "Rhetoric of War" = "Peace" "I want you to know that behind the rhetoric of war is a deep desire for peace." Our way or the highway: Either Good & Love OR Hate & Evil The doctrine that says, either you're with us or you're with the enemy, still stands.(Applause.) The marketing division of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation defines a robot as "Your plastic pal who's fun to be with."   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

54.  Re: Bush unable to distinguish Iraq and al Qaeda   by Damien07       at Sun 29 Sep 10:34pm score of 1   in reply to comment 8     My goodness, aren't we sophisticated!! The President sure must be simple-minded to view this situation through a prism of "good versus evil". I suppose you would prefer the French position of endless moral equivocation. The kind of sophistication that allows one to collaborate with Nazis while quoting Plato and Schopenhauer. The President's lens is the correct one; the enemy (al-Quada or Saddam) represent about as pure an evil as can exist in this world. To oppose evil is inherently good; this is a battle between good and evil. Which side are you on, anyway?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   61.  Mistake Good Intent with infallibility of choice   by Philosawyer       at Mon 30 Sep 8:10am score of 1   in reply to comment 54     Which side are you on, anyway? I am on the side of good and I am against evil. (Doesn't tell you that much does it?) I also do not think that al Qaeda and Iraq are indistinguishable based upon the criterion chosen by the President. Which side are you on? Is the wrong question in the first place to be asking but that is exactly where the Bush rhetoric leaves you. Personally I don't know anyone who is not on the side of "good" but they have a lot of different opinions on what to do about it. Are you for or against war? Are you for or against Poverty? Disease? Torture? Child Abuse? Poisoned water? Rape? Murder? Starvation? Does being against something tell you what to do? The President's lens is the correct one; the enemy (al-Qaeda or Saddam) represent about as pure an evil as can exist in this world. That depends on your definition of evil, in my opinion a serial killer, or someone who murders, rapes and tortures for the feeling of power is much closer to pure evil. Isn't it ironic, that it is exactly that type of thinking that the adherents of al Qaeda have. They believe they are opposing evil and that to do so is inherently good, and they justify the killing of civilians on the grounds of their twisted religious beliefs in the name of the greater good. They are doing whatever they can to oppose what they perceive to be evil. To oppose evil is inherently good. Sorry, but that is not necessarily true. A lot of terrible acts have been done in the name of opposing evil. This is tantamount to suggesting that the end justifies the means, and it doesn't. Being opposed to war as soon as possible without seeking the support of international allies, is not the same as moral equivocation. Being for immediate action, is not always morally good. Why not immediate action on so many other evils in the world. Why this one, and why now? Do you think it is impossible that virtually the whole rest of the world might be right and that the call for immediate war is not in the interest of pursing the good? Painting everyone who does not agree with your particular plan as equivocators is simply untrue. Which side are you on? In this case, its not something that can be both honestly answered with one word and still provide any useful information. As for me, I am one of the "good" guys. The marketing division of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation defines a robot as "Your plastic pal who's fun to be with."   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

9.  Al-Qaeda is to Iraq as Incubator babies to Kuwait?   by Huntred       at Sat 28 Sep 9:07am score of 5 interesting     What was always missing from both George I and George II's reign was exactly HOW Iraq - or more particularly, Saddam - threatens the US. Prior to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, Saddam was our buddy - or at least not our enemy. If they were considered baddies, a simple "Oops, my bad!" would not have sufficed when Iraq put new bay windows in the USS Stark at the expense of the lives of 37 sailors. This sort of "acceptable loss caused by our buddy" hadn't been seen since Israel made a multi-pronged assault on the USS Liberty, killing 34 American sailors. This is just what friends do. And if any voice rose when Iraq conducted gas warfare, well gassing didn't bother George I none when it was used against Iranians or against civilians (called either "the Kurds" or "his own people", contradictory labels but useful depending on what sympathies one is trying to evoke from the crowd). Hint: Feeling bad for the Kurds is ok, until you get to Turkey where they have been engaged in a sustained war with the Kurds using the weapons we sell them. So all that's left is the invasion of Kuwait which the Mad Dictator informed our US Ambassador about in order to make sure the US was cool with the idea a couple days beforehand. But we definitely went to war about something. Treaty with Kuwait? No. Hmm...I know there was that story about babies and incubators, but that was bullshit. I suppose it was to prevent Iraq from invading Saudi Arabia - BTW could ANYONE show me that this was planned at any level? A satellite photo? Document? Well, the end result was that we ripped up a chunk of his military, and slapped a load of sanctions that trashed his economy and made life hard for civilians. If our objective was to get someone pissed at us... As in art (if you call Hollywood action movies "art"), the US needs a distinct "Bad Guy" now that the Russians are kinda lame and the North Koreans too enigmatic. But don't worry - our heavy-handed approach to the region will give an up-and-coming starlet a chance to have major influence in that area as the alternative to what will be seen as the "oppressive, imperialistic west": China. Huntred   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

10.  Maybe they misspoke, or lied, to us   by BatGuano       at Sat 28 Sep 10:48am score of 3 intriguing     CNN this morning reported that the CIA is again saying they have nothing to link Al Qaeda and Saddam. Yesterday's Washington Times printed that "The International Atomic Energy Agency says that a report cited by President Bush as evidence that Iraq in 1998 was "six months away" from developing a nuclear weapon does not exist.... "'He's referring to 1991 there,' said Deputy Press Secretary Scott McClellan. 'In '91, there was a report saying that after the war they found out they were about six months away.'" That report also doesn't exist, the IAEA said. I'm sure Saddam is an evil dictator, yadda, yadda, yadda, but are they lying to us about Al Qaeda and WMD's? Bush's arguments seem to have the truthful quality of state congress campaign ads. your radio friend, Bat Guano   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

14.  Hed: 'Bush Makes Shit Up'   by holgate       at Sat 28 Sep 12:18pm score of 2 astute     If even the CIA categorically says there's no established link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda that extends beyond a couple of his hired thugs finding religion in the early 90s, then surely these kind of (-1 disengenuous) hints would be laughable if they weren't deeply scary. How long before we get something similar to the 'Kuwaiti incubators' story? Or is the coincidental up-turning of a lump of uranium designed to fulfil that purpose?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

17.  Re: Hed: 'Bush Makes Shit Up'   by marduk_kur       at Sat 28 Sep 1:33pm score of 1   in reply to comment 14     How long before we get something similar to the 'Kuwaiti incubators' story? Or is the coincidental up-turning of a lump of uranium designed to fulfil that purpose? Just one hour too early, man. Sad lad, he really couldn't handle starting from scratch on the very first level. But he died the death of a warrior.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

16.  More News From CNN   by Adipic Acid       at Sat 28 Sep 1:26pm score of 2 informative     ANKARA, Turkey (Reuters) -- Turkish paramilitary police have seized more than 15 kg (33 lbs) of weapons-grade uranium. Two men were detained and accused of smuggling the material, the state-run Anatolian news agency said on Saturday. Officers in the southern province of Sanliurfa, which borders Syria and is about 250 km (155 miles) from the Iraqi border, acted on a tip-off. Complete Story No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Churchill   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

45.  Re: More News From CNN   by rekoil       at Sun 29 Sep 11:06am score of 1   in reply to comment 16     Oops! Try five ounces...enough to build a nuclear hand grenade, maybe...   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

19.  We've all been expecting this.   by TheMCP       at Sat 28 Sep 2:10pm score of 2 compelling     We've all seen this coming. We've all been expecting this for months and months now. This "news" comes as absolutely no surprise at all. Given its past behavior, I had no doubt that the Bush administration would use any excuse, no matter how flimsy or tenuous the evidence, to claim that Iraq supported Al Queda. Now the problem we all have is, what to believe. The administration says they're linked. The CIA and democratic senators on the intelligence committee say they have no evidence of this. The facts seem... iffy. Yet, the consequences of ignoring the issue could be severe. Do we want to send our boys off to fight and die in Dubya's pet war, and then hopefully find out afterward if there was or wasn't any evidence that we weren't being fed a load of bull by the man who got himself installed as President, or do we want to decide not to go and hope we don't get attacked with chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons from Iraq in the future? I am deeply, deeply angry at all of our elected officials in Washington DC for forcing our nation to confront this dilemma with insufficient information to make a decision of which we can feel confident and insufficient reason to trust or believe any of them. End of line.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

23.  nonsensical   by liminal999       at Sat 28 Sep 2:50pm score of 1.5 informative     There was a recent New Yorker article on this (2-3 weeks ago, no online link unfortunately). The administration is basically making a lot of assumptions in its case for war (assuming that the whole thing isn't a political ploy to skew the midterm elections and take the heat off the corrupt corporate connections inside the white house anyway). These assumptions are: 1) Iraq has/is attempting develop WMD 2) Iraq is planning on using these pre-emptively on US targets or US soil 3) Preemptive strike will come from a terrorist surregate (i.e. Al Quayda) since Iraq's ballistic program is stuck in the 60's. Assumption one is probably fairly likely. Assumption two is a matter of opinion...no one really knows either way. Three is the important one..and the most problematic. First, Al Quayda doesn't like the secular leaders of Arab states. Most of the upper echelon leadership of Al Quayda comes from Egyptians plotted the overthrow (and plotted the assasination) of Sadat, Nassar, and Mubarak. Bin Ladin has had no small beef with the House of Saud. Many Senior Al Quayda people have openly stated that they consider Saddam an apostate, and when Saddam invaded Kuwait Bin Laden offered to take his Mujaheden legions from Afghanistan to Kuwait to fight against him (Saudi Arabia denied his request to do so). The only governments that Al Quayda has had a good relationship with have been The Taliban in Afghanistan and the el-Bashir government in Sudan. Saddam has been closely associated with one terrorist group, Abu Nidal, a secular palestinian group with no global pretentions. Nidal was recently found dead in Baghdad. So even if these guys could put aside their differences, is it possible that Saddam would give them a WMD? Saddam is notoriously a distrustful control freak. He routinely executes high level people in his own government on the suspicion they are plotting against him. It's unlikely, then, that he would give control of the most powerful weapons in his arsenal to a free-wheeling group, especially one that has openly advocated his demise. So yeah, barring very specific, physical evidence, the logic of the situation seems to point away from the Iraq and Al Quayda having much of a connection. ugly design for beautiful people   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

33.  Point to note.   by tongue       at Sat 28 Sep 9:30pm score of 2 informative     The only valid point I've heard thus far about Bush Administration's rallying call for an invasion of Iraq (apart from the typical mantra 'Saddam-is-evil') is the fact of that the Iraqi government initiated chemical attacks against the Kurds at Halabja in 1988. If the story rings true as how the current administration is presenting it, then it is indeed a brutal and unforgivable act similar to that of the U.S. use of the chemical agent 'Orange' in Vietnam and their use of depleted uranium shells in their ammunition during the Gulf War. Unfortunately, just like most of the Bush Administration's allegations (read: There was NO warning of 9/11 & We will get Osama bin Laden dead-or-alive no matter what), they generally don't follow through. The very helicopters that was used in the chemical attack was American sold to Iraq just 5 years before despite awareness of Iraqi-Kurd volitality. Sean Gonsalves of http://seattlepi.nwsource.com also reported on Sept 24 that the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs report, or Reigle report showed that Bush I administration continued to keep sending biochemical warfare ingredients to the Iraqi military until Nov. 28, 1989 after the 1988 gassing of the Kurds. Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward, in a December 15, 1986 article, pointed out that the CIA began to secretly supply Iraq with intelligence in 1984 that was used to 'calibrate' mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops". This means that Rumsfeld and company not only knew about the chemical warfare attacks but helped Iraq target the victims. Furthermore, according to House Committee on Government Operations report "Strengthening the Export License System," from July 18 right up until the day Iraq invaded Kuwait, the Bush administration approved of $4.8 million in advanced technology product sales to Iraq -- the end-user being Iraq's Ministry of Industry and Military Industrialization (MIMI), which was identified in 1988 as a facility for Iraq's chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs. And now, the U.S. government is complaining that Iraq is 'trying to acquire' WMD? Isn't it clear that the U.S. was originally largely responsible for the military might of Iraq? Mind you, Saddam Hussein was once elevated to power mostly through U.S. assistance in their hatred for the Iranians (ref: Shah of Iran, another failed U.S. attempt) To me, all this is a little like the case of a dog that keeps chasing its tail. Except mabye, even the dog has enough sense to sit down and shut up sometimes.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

35.  Re: Point to note.   by stankow       at Sat 28 Sep 10:18pm score of 1   in reply to comment 33     The only valid point I've heard thus far about Bush Administration's rallying call for an invasion of Iraq (apart from the typical mantra 'Saddam-is-evil') is the fact of that the Iraqi government initiated chemical attacks against the Kurds at Halabja in 1988. If the story rings true as how the current administration is presenting it, then it is indeed a brutal and unforgivable act similar to that of the U.S. use of the chemical agent 'Orange' in Vietnam and their use of depleted uranium shells in their ammunition during the Gulf War. That is an intellectually dishonest argument, and I think you know it. The use of Agent Orange was as a defoliant. The long-term health effects were not intentional -- unlike Hussein's use of chemical weapons as weapons. Similarly, depleted uranium isn't used because it's uranium, but because of its armor-piercing capabilities. Any radiological or poisonous side effect is, again, an unintended side effect -- again, unlike Hussein's use of chemical weapons. The rest of your argument makes some excellent points, but they're lost in your opener that tries to equivocate any use of chemistry in warfare with the intentional use of chemicals as weapons.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   39.  Re: Point to note.   by tongue       at Sun 29 Sep 6:54am score of 1   in reply to comment 35     Your defence is not unlike that of the US Congress that initially welcomed the military's claims that no harm was done by herbicide exposure. That was, at least, until the toll of dying veterans mounted, and studies have shown that up to 50,000 deformed children have been born to parents exposed to the U.S. released chemicals (www.okagentorangefound.org). Overall, more then two million people (a www.twnside.org.sg link) were ultimately exposed. In comparison to the Sept 11 tragedy whereby a mere 3000 people were massacred, its indicative of the measure of pain and suffering that it has wrought. Generation after generation of Vietnamese. Apparently, the best defence you can come up with is 'unintentional' and 'defoliant'. In order to disconstruct your 'unintentional' argument, here's a passage from a www.okagentorangefound.org link that you should read. "The White House compromised the independence of the CDC [Centers for Disease Control] and undermined the [Agent Orange] study [of Vietnam Veterans] by controlling crucial decisions and guiding the course of research at the same time it had secretly taken a legal position to resist demands to compensate victims of Agent Orange exposure and industrial accidents." And here's another for good measure, "In May 1983, two VA researchers, Flicker and Young, used the VA Agent Orange Registry of diseases and conditions, reported by Vietnam Vets during Agent Orange Exams at VA Medical Centers and Hospitals; and they found a statistically of buccal cavity or pharynx cancer and lymphomas (NHL) in the Vietnam Veteran registrants. 5. However, in August 1983, Drs. Flicker and Young presented a paper at the 186th National Meeting of the American Chemical Society, which stated -- "To date, no statistically significant health or reproductive effect has been uncovered". *** THIS IS JUST THE OPPOSITE OF PART OF WHAT WAS KNOWN IN MAY (1983)." (a www.okagentorangefound.org link) In other words, the U.S. government not only suspected Agent Orange's deadly properties but also took active steps to impede any effort of studying and verifying the dangers of Agent orange before releasing it on an entire population of human beings like you and me. Could any American honestly brush it off as 'unintentional' had the situation been reversed and when the effects of the chemical are taking its toll on 2 million American lives? Look at it this way, try thinking agent orange in terms of you and your loved ones. You want 'intellectually dishonest argument'? Look in the mirror. Ironically, it is interesting to note that in your eager defence of the U.S. military, you selectively fail to acknowledge the fact that U.S. has not only assisted and supplied Iraq with the chemical WMD, but also encouraged and help 'target' innocent people to this end. Which is, after all, the main point of this discussion. In your effort to absolve the U.S. of their 'unintentional' use of chemical weapons, you seem to have completely overlook the 'chemical as weapons' (as oppose to 'chemistry in warfare') that killed the Kurds was largely 'Made in America'?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   76.  Re: Point to note.   by tongue       at Sat 12 Oct 12:07am score of 1   in reply to comment 35     "That is an intellectually dishonest argument, and I think you know it.....The long-term health effects were not intentional -- unlike Hussein's use of chemical weapons as weapons. Similarly, depleted uranium isn't used because it's uranium, but because of its armor-piercing capabilities. Any radiological or poisonous side effect is, again, an unintended side effect -- again, unlike Hussein's use of chemical weapons. " U.S. deployed hundreds of tons of weapons during the 1991 Gulf War, many of them anti-tank shells made of depleted uranium 238. This material is 1.7 times more dense than lead, and hence when incorporated into an anti-tank shell and fired, it achieves great momentum, cutting through tank armor like a hot knife through butter. What other properties does uranium 238 possess? First, it is pyrophoric: When it hits a tank at high speed it bursts into flames, producing tiny aerosolized particles less than 5 microns in diameter that are easily inhalable into the terminal air passages of the lung. Second, it is a potent radioactive carcinogen, emitting a relatively heavy alpha particle composed of 2 protons and 2 neutrons. Once inside the body -- either in the lung if it has been inhaled, or in a wound if it penetrates flesh, or ingested since it concentrates in the food chain and contaminates water -- it can produce cancer in the lungs, bones, blood, or kidneys. Third, it has a half-life of 4.5 billion years, meaning the areas in which this ammunition was used in Iraq and Kuwait during Gulf War will remain effectively radioactive for the rest of time. Children are 10 to 20 times more sensitive to the effects of radiation than adults. My fellow pediatricians in the Iraqi town of Basra, for example, are reporting an increase of 6 to 12 times in the incidence of childhood leukemia and cancer. Yet because of the sanctions imposed upon Iraq by the United States and United Nations, they have no access to drugs or effective radiation machines to treat their patients. The incidence of congenital malformations has doubled in the exposed populations in Iraq where these weapons were used. Among them are babies born with only one eye or missing all or part of their brain. The medical consequences of the use of uranium 238 almost certainly did not affect only Iraqis. Some U.S. veterans exposed to it are reported, by at least one medical researcher, to be excreting uranium in their urine a decade later. Other reports indicate it is being excreted in their semen. (The fact that almost one-third of the American tanks used in Desert Storm were themselves made of uranium 238 is another story, for their crews were thereby exposed to whole-body gamma radiation.) Would these effects have surprised the U.S. authorities? No, for incredible as it may seem, the American military's own studies prior to Desert Storm warned that aerosol uranium exposure under battlefield conditions could lead to cancers of the lung and bone, kidney damage, non-malignant lung disease, neurocognitive disorders, chromosomal damage and birth defects. Helen Caldicott Published on Thursday, October 10, 2002 by the San Francisco Chronicle   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   40.  Re: Point to note.   by stankow       at Sun 29 Sep 7:37am score of 1   in reply to comment 39     In other words, the U.S. government not only suspected Agent Orange's deadly properties but also took active steps to impede any effort of studying and verifying the dangers of Agent orange before releasing it on an entire population of human beings like you and me. 1983. 1990. The Eighties. 1978. 1980. 1982. 1987. What do these dates, the only ones found in your links, have in common? They're all after America left Vietnam. All of the coverups, and yes, I admit there were coverups by the U.S. military and others in the Agent Orange case, were done after the fact. Show me some evidence that the ill effects were known beforehand by the commanders who were ordering the use of Agent Orange in the field, and I may be convinced that its use was equivalent to chemical warfare. As for whether the U.S. was complicit in Iraq's chemical weapons usage, I refer you to the last lines of my previous post: The rest of your argument makes some excellent points, but they're lost in your opener that tries to equivocate any use of chemistry in warfare with the intentional use of chemicals as weapons.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

34.  Think I've Got It   by uncarved block       at Sat 28 Sep 9:48pm score of 1     Kudos to Liminal999 for getting me started on this line of thinking. As this article, and many more both submitted and accepted here have shown, there's serious flaws with the premise of an imminent Iraqi attack on the US, or even US troops. IMO, the historical record doesn't support it, and the current state of Iraq's missile program (unlike the bio-weapons) can be shown to be not up to any long range attacks. Compared to its neighbors, Iraq's terrorism sponsorship is rather low-- Saddam's a kind of smashjaw kind of guy, and anyone good at espionage is not going to be very trusted by an absolute tyrant like Hussein. (A certain degree of autonomy seems to be part of every successful intelligence agency, and if there's anything Hussein distrusts, autonomy in his subordinates is probably it).       So why pursue this war? Many of the reasons given are either too simple, or even farcical. The attempt on dad? Pure oil politics? Some kind of idee fixe involving opposition to the US in any form? Purely evil intentions by the administration? All these seem too simple, so I'll try this more complicated notion on you all.       If Iraq isn't going to attack the US, who would they attack? Israel; in fact, they did so during the Gulf war. What might lift pressure/sanctions from Iraq (and hence Saddam)? Widespread regional conflict-- if every nation is involved in some sort of anti-US action, Iraq looks better not by improving, but by lowering the bar (a tactic our current president understands all too well, IMHO). How could this widespread chaos be reached?       Not by goading another nation, like Syria or Iran into a conflict, at least not a unilateral action (to use the phrase currently in vogue). Nothing Saddam could offer would be worth it for the leader of those states, even if Iraq had enough to offer. But there's more than one way to skin a cat, and playing one certainty against another is one possibility: to be precise, combining the existence of folks willing to commit the most extreme attacks against Israel with the knowledge that Israeli policy has been based on responding to force with force squared (again, IMHO). Kill five of us? We'll try to kill at least 25 of you. (If you think this is paranoid, or irrational hatred of Israel, take a look at the casualties on both sides). Now imagine the response if WMD's were involved-- and the suppliers of the weapons was left nebulous. The result could well be war, by Israel against any of its neighbors. Now, Egypt and Syria and Lebanon and ___________ may not feel like individually going after Israel, but an agressive campaign might give them just the excuse to do so. US support? You think it's hard to sell the current Israeli policies now, try drumming up support for another seizure of Beirut.       Here's where things get tricky for a US administration, especially a conservative one. The argument I've made is of the A=B=C type, where all the voters hear (and want to hear) is A=C; in a political culture like ours, any argument that's not A=B is 'just too complicated'. And this is why using the war as a referendum on the war is so important: declaring a line of action that could be torpedoed a month later due to domestic politics is counterproductive (if you follow this reasoning, or something similar). As the critics have accurately noted, this is going to take a while; guaranteeing the home front is good policy (again, if you follow the premise). If defending Israel is an unquestioned part of your foreign policy, defusing a potential overreaction by that state is just good policy-- and Israeli leaders have shown, time and again, that when it comes to security no amount of our aid is going to dissuade them from military action.       Given the choice between a bad option and a worse one, the sham WoT strategy actually makes sense, in a way. Certainly, the line, "We're invading Iraq to protect Israel" isn't going to drum up much support domestically-- this is where the conservative angle comes in. Isolationism, or at least the refusal of "foreign entanglements", is a long standing fear among conservatives, and would open the door for a right candidate to unseat Bush/43 (this assumes that they don't fear the Dems, and that winning a second term is the be all and end all of the modern presidency-- neither of these assumptions seems terribly farfetched, IMHO).       In short form: we're invading Iraq to prevent them from providing bioweapons to Islamic Jihad to use against an Israel willing to incite regional conflict. Pick this apart if you will-- I merely present this as an alternative explanation to the apparent madness I read every day. I could have been shorter, but precision often leads to misunderstandings, and these notions are (at least to me) new propositions. Eschew Obfuscation Assiduously   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

46.  Re: Think I've Got It   by Paine       at Sun 29 Sep 12:53pm score of 1   in reply to comment 34     In short form: we're invading Iraq to prevent them from providing bioweapons to Islamic Jihad to use against an Israel willing to incite regional conflict. I think you are correct that the Administration's primary objective is to "stabilize" the circumstances confronting Israel. The reason to do that without appearing to is not only to avoid risking a lack political support for the task but to avoid having to rework the basis of our support for the governments that oppose Israel. The rise of Pan-Islamist militants, after all, happened in the context of that support. You showed how the character of Israel's response to aggression has become such a known quantity that it allows Iraq to calculate on the basis of it. But the scenario you sketched out is complicated by the fact that everyone in the region is using this trusty coefficient in their thinking. One way to reflect upon this is to view Iraq in the context of the Arab League. I am by no means a scholar on this matter but I think I can point to a few things that show how the issue of Iraq conceals "calculations" of all the parties with an interest there. It has often been said that Iraq lobbed missles at Israel in Gulf War One in the hopes of widening the war into a replay of the previous Arab vs. Israel wars. This strategy would fall into line with your suggestion that Saddam sees chaos as his best line of defense. But all the previous attempts to destroy Israel not only failed but mark the moments it became more powerful. The Arab League is keenly aware of this. Much of the "state sponsored terrorism" since 67 has been a way for members of the League to bracket the violence and the threat of violence against Israel so that they do not risk losing more ground to her. Another advantage of this covert campaign is that it allows the governments to work with the US, who goes a long way to maintain their military strength. From this perspective, Saddam's bombing of Israel when he was on the verge of being capped was a message to the Arab League that they were about to lose an important source of opposition to Israel, a source they do not have to overtly support. From this perspective, Saddam was appealing to the status quo, not unleashing the hounds of war. Let us now consider the most recent meeting of the League. For the first time ever, the Arab nations accepted the principle of the co-existence of Palestine and Israel and proposed what conditions would satisfy all of them at once. The Crown Prince went to great efforts to make sure a representative of Iraq attended the meeting over the obvious revulsion of the Gulf State members. The meeting was deemed by our Administration as a very nice gesture but with little meaning beyond the symbolic. What if the Administration doesn't actually feel that way? What if the Administration sees a new regime in Iraq as an alternative to the sort of consensus Crown Prince Abdullah is working toward? The administration declares a wish to change the dynamics in the region. Choosing this war over calling Abdullah on his bluff will only extend that dynamic further.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

36.  Lemme see if I have this right...   by fightinwords       at Sun 29 Sep 2:43am score of 1.5 succinct     The best way to get Arabs to stop attacking is is to attack some more Arabs? Why don't we ask the Israelis how that line of thought is working. My head hurts. "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Then give up. No use being a damn fool about it." -- Groucho   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

37.  My boggling recently has lost its focus.   by rmurf62       at Sun 29 Sep 3:39am score of 1     There are so many things that boggle the mind regarding Bush II's propaganda campaign on Iraq. The amount of disinformation is staggering, and the ease in which most of it is proven false suggests that this administration really does assume the American people (and all of our proposed "allies") are sheep, morons, and worse. Hell, just read the news wires: medium-range missles show up in Syria, aimed at Israel, supplied by Iran, al-Qaeda camps are recently spotted in Iran. Camps have also been spotted in Pakistan; 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi. And we're supposed to accept (with no questioning, remember, good Americans all speak with one voice) top-secret unsubstantiated assertions that Iraq is the country we have to attack RIGHT NOW??? (And do you notice that the administration refuses to address any of the nagging dissent regarding, say, economic repercussions, the possibility of this upgrading into an Arab-Israeli war, what happens when Hussein is gone, the grim prospects of urban warfare in Baghdad, who's paying for all this, etc. etc. etc.) I know Bush likes his messages nice & simple, but this entire game has gotten so terribly, terribly complicated. Hopefully, there's a few assets left which might help to slow down this stupid, stupid path to war: the good common sense of the American people; the fact that nobody else except Britain and Israel buy this administration's bullshit (thank you, France and Russia); and, the increasing evidence that any major war (as indicated above) will truly shove our fragile economy into the toilet. After all, they say that India & Pakistan finally avoided war this winter because several computer companies threatened to pull their customer service business out of India. Let's hope that the voice of bidness is able to put a damper on these hysterical efforts. YYYYYYYYYYAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGH!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

56.  Highly unlikely   by lucas_m       at Mon 30 Sep 5:12am score of 1     As stated in the write-up we probably are never going to see any of this so called evidence. Donald Rumsfeld (or anyone else) saying that there is "solid evidence" of the presence in Iraq of al Qaeda members does not exactly prove anything. Furthermore there has been solid evidence of the presence of al Qaeda members in Countries like Germany, France, the Netherlands, and even the United States too. The presence of al Qaeda members in a country doesn't prove there are ties between al Qaeda and the government of such a country. In the case of Iraq it's highly unlikely such ties exists. Saddam and Osama have very little in common. Saddam is officially a Sunni muslim, but not a very religious one, to say the least. Saddam is only interested in maintaining his power and because a major part of his opposition consists of shi'a fundamentalists, much like Osama, the chances of the two teaming up are about as likely as the combination of Pope John Paul II with L. Ron Hubbard (were the latter alive) The only thing the Saddam and Osama have in common really, is America as an enemy. As long as the United States keep pushing to prove links between the two, those links may become a self-fulfilling prophecy. But who would want to do that? Moi, j'aime ricocher.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

75.  doesn't matter what we want...   by strumbucket       at Wed 2 Oct 9:33pm score of 1     I had been in the streets of Berlin, talking with the ordinary people, and that morning noted in my diary: "Everybody against the war. People talking openly. How can a country go into a major war with a population dead set against it?" - William L.Shirer, August 31, 1939 got bodybags?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]