| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/24 |
| 2006/3/21-25 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:42359 Activity:kinda low |
3/21 So it turns out that Saddam Hussein was telling the truth and
Bush was the bullshitter. This must really be a bitter
pill for Bush voters to have to swallow:
http://csua.org/u/fbb
\_ Poor Saddam! It was so unfair that he was deposed by the evil
George Bush! We should reinstate him right away so he can bring
peace and freedom back to his Peoples!
\_ You're missing the point. The point is that GW is actually no
better than Saddam. He launched this war declaring that he had
proof that there were WMD. Instead he has been proven a liar
numerous times over and is as much of a terrorist as Osama bin
Ladin. So stop pretending that you are "holier than thou" and
are doing the Iraqi ppl a favor, because you clearly are not.
\_ Bush said there were WMD and there aren't, true. Where's the
proof that this was a lie and not a mistake? Quite a few
people with no vested interest in an Iraq invasion also
said they were there. I realize you're already convinced, but
just as an exercise imagine you're the prosecuter in the
impeachment trial. What evidence are you going to bring
out to support the lying claim?
\_ Look up "Downing Street Memo". Was huge in the news all
around the world (except here). But seriously, some
things are just plain obvious. Are you going to say that
Barry Bonds never took steroids just because we can't
convict him for it? - pp
\_ I had heard about it, but I only just read it now after
you posted that. Ok, impeach the son of a bitch.
I'm convinced.
\_ I'm saying that OJ got acquited because the gloves
don't fit. -not the pp and not the op
\_ I think Bush has plausible deniability on this one.
"Plausible deniability" is code for "you know I did it,
but you can't prove it." It's obvious that Bush and
the rest of the PNAC crew were planning to go to war
with Iraq from the outset of his presidency (and even
before), and were looking for an excuse that would fly
with the public. -tom
\_ Fine. There's a clear public record that indicates
that they were going to invade Iraq regardless, I
agree. But how does that prove Bush was *lying*
about WMD's? Where all the other people who said
about WMD's? Were all the other people who said
publicly that there were WMD's who had no affiliation
with PNAC or the administration lying also? I think
Bush is despicable, and should be run out of office
for a variety of reasons, but I find the lying label
to be tiresome since there does not appear to be any
proof, and I think sticking to that particular line
discredits Bush's critics. Our country desperately
needs Bush's critics to not be discrecited in any way
needs Bush's critics to not be discredited in any way
right now.
\_ Yes I agree. Saying that someone lied probably
seems pretty petty. People lie all the time, but
usually for a lot smaller causes. But I can see
your point. In regards to proof, look at comment
above regarding Downing Street Memo. Even without
the memo, it was pretty obvious tho. When we first
went into Afghanistan, poeple were already making
predictions that Bush would try to fabricate reasons
to go to war with Iraq. When that actually happened,
...well guess what? Now, the Muslim world is having
a field day in how Americans are taking over their
lands and trying to pretend that they are spreading
freedom. What we do will only exacerbate the
terrorism. If you look at it, we are really the
authors of our own distress. (i.e. we are the
problem, not the solution)
\_ Yes Bother! I hear you! Restore Saddam! Let Freedom Ring!
Kick out the American Occupiers, the Great Oppressors of
Our Once Free Peoples and give us Our Great Leader back to
restore us to the greatness that was once Greater Iraq's 19
states! Only Saddam can give us the Freedom and Peace we the
Iraqi Peoples have earned! Praise Allah! Alahu Akbar!
\_ See, here's the problem. We did a Good Thing, but did
it badly and incompetently, and under super-dishonest,
illegal premises. Like going down to the rail yards and
shooting the guy pushing drugs to little kids because the
cops won't deal with him. Which doesn't change the fact
that it's a Good Thing. Which doesn't change the fact
that it was stupid, incompetent and illegal. No, I don't
have a point. -John
\_ We took out the guy pushing drugs, along with most of
the kids, and now are in the process of installing
another guy to push different drugs. Oh, and now
there's a turf war among other pushers competing
for the neighberhood, and lots of innocent people
are being killed in drive-bys. -tom
\_ Except for the "installing another guy to push
different drugs" part, which is silly, isn't that
sort of what I said? -John
\_ Why is that silly? We basically have a history
of doing that. Didn't we basically install
Saddam Hussein as leader of Iraq? Didn't we
basically arm Osama bin Ladin with advanced
military equipment when he was fighting
the Russians in Afghanistan? We have created our
own worst enemies time and time again.
And seriously, if we have this policy of
installing puppets around the world, at least
get it right. --!tom
\_ Yes, we have done this. I am not referring
to historical events. I am referring to now.
And I see a reasonably good-faith, albeit
incompetent and probably doomed effort to
get the Iraqis and Afghans to vote for a
democratic representative govt., even if it's
a disingenuous ploy to get them off our
backs. -John
\_ You are begging the question; it's not clear
that removing the pusher was a Good Thing. -tom
\_ He was a murderous, totalitarian thug. Getting
rid of these is always a good thing if you
don't fuck it up and don't do it on dishonest
premises. The fact that we have installed and
supported similar thugs in the past, or that
a lot of the world is prepared to tolerate
such thugs in the interest of geopolitics
should not be an obstacle to removing them. My
point is that if you're going to do it, do it
right--how is this begging the question? -John
\_ What would be sad is if the Iraq debacle
ended up discrediting idealistic ventures
to secure freedom around the world in the
future.
\_ "Getting rid of murderous, totalitarian
thugs is always a good thing" is an
unfounded statement. It's only a good
thing if the result is something better
in the end. I said before the invasion
that the most likely result of a power
vacuum in Iraq was an Islamic fundamentalist
government, elected or not; that was
completely predictable, and as such,
the benefit of removing Saddam has to
be weighed against the likely result.
I still think it would be hilarious if
the Iraqis elected Osama bin Laden. -tom
\_ OK, maybe I'm nitpicking semantically,
but I don't consider getting rid of one
thug to have him replaced by another to
be "getting rid of a thug". I consider
that to be an amateurish fuckup. In
which case, yes, you're right. But it
occurs to me in Iraq that the danger is
not us putting in another thug, but
bloody civil war. -John
\_ Oh... I dunno. Did the guy at the rail yard end up
dead? Ok, so the first shot took out a window and the
second hit a stray dog. The third killed him so the
kids stand a chance now. Actually the initial take down
was beautifully executed. It was afterwards that things
could have been better, mostly I think because we're now
afraid to deal with chaos with the giant hammer required
because then people start screaming about human rights
for terrorists so we go half assed and drag it out
which is much worse than just dealing with it up front
and going home. As far as illegal, sorry but pft. In
the international realm, might makes right. There is
no higher authority. Without effective enforcement,
you don't have laws, just suggestions from your
neighbors and handshake agreements.
\_ More reason to actually have WMD so Bush will think twice
about an invasion. Go North Korea!
\_ Nah. The Bush voters don't care.
\_ Except the same documents also show continued deceit and that
Saddam's generals were honestly surprised when Saddam didn't have
any WMD at the start of the war.
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/Iraq/2006/03/17/1493281-ap.html
\_ Hey we invaded, the burden of proof is on us to find
the stuff.
\_ We invaded Iraq because Dubya, I mean Saddam, I mean, Saddam's
generals, had no doubt he had WMDs!
They are obviously buried in the desert ... probably in Syria ...
\_ We have always been at war with Eastasia.
\_ let's go start a land war!
\_ Let's have a War
So you can all Die.
Let's Have a War
We can all use our Brains.
Let's Have a War
Redeem this space.
Let's have a War
We have this place.
Let's have a War
Jack up the Dow Jones
Let's have a War
We can save New Jersey
Let's have a War
Blame it on the Middle Class
Let's have a War
Like rats in a cage.
Let's have a War
Sell the rights to the networks
Let's have a War
Nevermind about that last time.
Let's have a War
Give life a little twist.
Let's have a War
The Enemy's Within..
\_ You just made my fucking day. Thanks.
\_ No wonder we couldn't find the WMDs, Saddam used
iocaine powder! |
| 5/24 |
|
| csua.org/u/fbb -> news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20060321/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_wmd_tapes_1 Saddam Hussein and top aides searched for ways in the 1990s to prove to the world they'd given up banned weapons. the frustrated Iraqi president interjected at one meeting, transcripts show. Even as the documents make clear Saddam's regime had given up banned weapons, they also attest to its continued secretiveness: A 1997 document from Iraqi intelligence instructed agencies to keep confidential files away from UN teams, and to remove "any forbidden equipment." Since it's now acknowledged the Iraqis had ended the arms programs by then, the directive may have been aimed at securing stray pieces of equipment, and preserving some secrets from Iraq's 1980s work on chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Saddam's inner circle entertained notions of reviving the programs someday, the newly released documents show. "The factories will remain in our brains," one unidentified participant told Saddam at a meeting, apparently in the early 1990s. At the same meeting, however, Saddam, who was deposed by the US invasion in 2003 and is now on trial for crimes against humanity, led a discussion about converting chemical weapons factories to beneficial uses. When a subordinate complained that UN inspectors had seized equipment at the plants useful for pharmaceutical and insecticide production, Saddam jumped in, saying they had "no right" to deny the Iraqis the equipment, since "they have ascertained that we have no intention to produce in this field (chemical weapons)." Saddam's regime extensively videotaped and audiotaped meetings and other events, both public and confidential. The dozen transcribed discussions about weapons inspections largely dealt with Iraq's diplomatic strategies for getting the Security Council to confirm it had disarmed. Scores of Iraqi documents, seized after the 2003 invasion, are being released at the request of the US House Intelligence Committee chairman, Rep. Repeatedly in the transcripts, Saddam and his lieutenants remind each other that Iraq destroyed its chemical and biological weapons in the early 1990s, and shut down those programs and the nuclear-bomb program, which had never produced a weapon. "We played by the rules of the game," Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz said at a session in the mid-1990s. Amer Mohammed Rashid, a top weapons program official, told a 1996 presidential meeting he laid out the facts to the UN chief inspector. "We don't have anything to hide, so we're giving you all the details," he said he told Rolf Ekeus. In his final report in October 2004, Charles Duelfer, head of a post-invasion US team of weapons hunters, concluded Iraq and the UN inspectors had, indeed, dismantled the nuclear program and destroyed the chemical and biological weapons stockpiles by 1992, and the Iraqis never resumed production. Saddam's goal in the 1990s was to have the Security Council lift the economic sanctions strangling the Iraqi economy, by convincing council members Iraq had eliminated its WMD But he was thwarted at every turn by what he and aides viewed as US hard-liners blocking council action. The inspectors "destroyed everything and said, Iraq completed 95 percent of their commitment,'" Saddam said at one meeting. "We cooperated with the resolutions 100 percent and you all know that, and the 5 percent they claim we have not executed could take them 10 years to (verify). "Don't think for a minute that we still have WMD," he told his deputies. US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld speaks to an audience at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York in this February 17, 2006 file photo. John Abizaid, who oversees US military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan as head of Central Command, has agreed to keep the job at least another year at the request of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, defense officials said on Tuesday. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. |
| cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/Iraq/2006/03/17/1493281-ap.html WASHINGTON (AP) - Iraqi officials talked about when and how to deceive international authorities about their weapons programs in the mid-1990s, referring at one point to materials imported from the United States for an apparent chemical program. A transcript of the conversation is one of several dozen documents made public Friday by the US government as part of a program allowing researchers, the news media and Iraqis comb through millions of pages of documents and audio recordings confiscated since the 2003 invasion. In the US government translation of the transcript, which apparently covered a conversation transcribed by the Iraqis, an official identified as "Comrade Husayn" talks with Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and other officials about when it would be best to lie to weapons inspectors and UN Security Council members and when to be open. He shows particular concern outsiders will learn about importation of material, including some from the United States, apparently for chemical weapons. "They have a bigger problem with the chemical program, than the biological program," he said. "We have not told them that we used it on Iran, nor have we told them abut the size or kind of chemical weapons that we produced and we have not told them the truth about the imported material." He went on to say: "We imported a quantity from America and we imported a quantity from Europe. On the overall question of weapons of mass destruction, he said: "I must say that it is in our best interest not to uncover it, not only in fear of exposing the technology that we have or that we possess or to hide it for future agendas." The precise date of the conversation was not clear but clues suggest it came at the end of Rolf Ekeus' leadership of the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq, which he headed from 1991 to 1997. The documents show debates among Iraq's senior leadership about UN sanctions, inspections and resolutions - and how to handle the country's economic and military security. They come in an era when US officials now believe Saddam's ability to develop weapons of mass destruction was diminishing, under pressure from international sanctions. Although the Bush administration used the weapons programs as the main justification for the 2003 invasion, US arms inspectors ultimately found no concrete evidence Iraq produced weapons of mass destruction after 1991. Yet the Iraqis apparently were far from forthcoming about their actions. Another conversation with Saddam from the mid-1990s indicates officials knew they had problems with the weapons inspectors. "On the nuclear file, sir, we are saying we disclosed everything? No, we have uncleared problems in the nuclear field and I believe that they (the inspectors) know some of them," said a man identified as al-Sahhaf, possibly a reference to the former Iraqi diplomat and Information Minister Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf. "No, sir, they did not know, not all the methods, not all the means, not all the scientists and not all the places." He told Saddam missing materials and equipment - for biological and nuclear weapons - would be a problem in dealing with the UN as it crafted resolutions against Iraq. "Really, sir, we must be frank so that the resolution will be straightforward," al-Sahaf said. The transcripts also show extensive debates among Saddam's inner circle about how to deal with other governments. "Comrade Husayn" expressed frustration at Iraq's increasing isolation, venting particularly at the French, who were managing to upset the Americans as well. "To be truthful before your Excellency, I do not trust the French in their current position. Maybe this will change after the election," said Husayn. "I think that they are more distant than the Chinese are, even though the Chinese are very far also. They (French) appear in the Security Council with a yes one time and a no another time." "Therefore, sir, my personal belief is that they are layered (two-faced) and possibly in co-ordination with America and in co-ordination with the world." Years later, the United States and the French would be at odds over the invasion of Iraq. "Bring us tea and milk," Saddam would interrupt meetings to order. Saddam also spoke to his aides about a need to give Iraqis hope in the face of sanctions that were starting to make them suffer. "They need to see and hear results that they consider logical." |