2. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 9/6/2002 6:40:23 PM
3. Cellar Door - 9/6/2002 7:53:00 PM
Goerge W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Ann Coulter should be sent to Iraq immediately. Their mission? To kill Saddam Hussein.
Should be a snap.
4. joezan - 9/6/2002 9:48:50 PM
Well, I feel as if I've just bought a new house, and my schlumpy neighbors from down the road have already been here, drinking up all my beer and farting on my new couch.
Nevertheless, what better way to start a thread about Iraq than with a couple of photos of the man that Iraq is all about?
The one link I've added so far - Tales of the Tyrant - is an excellent Atlantic piece that looks into the weird world of the man himself. As the author, Mark Bowden, asks:
What does Saddam Hussein see in himself that no one else in the world seems to see? The answer is perhaps best revealed by the intimate details of the Iraqi leader's daily life.
Much of it is stuff most of us already knew, or have heard dribs and drabs of. But context is everything, and in the present context, one has to ask himself after reading the article whether Saddam hasn't expected something like this for a very long time.
5. jexster - 9/6/2002 11:11:37 PM
Imbecile to Issue Ultimatum TO THE WORLD!
How bout a big FUCK YOU.
Who the hell does this guy think he is anyway?
Mutha fucka can't even speak.
6. jexster - 9/6/2002 11:12:14 PM
Yo Zan...what IS your name?
7. jexster - 9/6/2002 11:21:43 PM
8. robertjayb - 9/6/2002 11:26:56 PM
The big Push: Man workin' hard, closing the deals...(NYTimes)
"President Bush spoke with world leaders in back-to-back phone calls that lasted 30 minutes altogether."
Thirty minutes! A man with true grit. Good job he does all that running. 
...steely gaze, firm grip. Whatta guy...
9. jexster - 9/6/2002 11:37:14 PM
And they told him to go fuck Bevo
10. jexster - 9/6/2002 11:40:48 PM
And they told him to go fuck Bevo
11. jexster - 9/6/2002 11:57:54 PM
And they told him to go fuck Bevo...
The War to Make Bush Believable and Stop From Laughing At Him:
FAQ's
1. I have heard Jexster refer frequently to Bevo. What in the hell is he talking about?
UT's legendary mascot is named Bevo. A true Texas longhorn tradition present during all UT games under the protection of the Silver Spurs.
This is what Bevo looks like. 
2. I have heard Our Maximum Leader say that Saddam Hussein "crawfishes". What in the hell is he talking about?
Its hard to say what that blithering idiot had in mind. That is why the whole world is laughing at him.
Crawfish walk backwards, a description more aptly applied to Bush, not Saddam.
This is what a crawfish looks like. To eat it you firstt separate the tail from the body. Then you suck the slime out of the head 
12. jexster - 9/7/2002 12:02:07 AM
JUST WAR
IN THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH - EWTN
2306 Those who renounce violence and bloodshed and, in order to safeguard human rights, make use of those means of defense available to the weakest, bear witness to evangelical charity, provided they do so without harming the rights and obligations of other men and societies. They bear legitimate witness to the gravity of the physical and moral risks of recourse to violence, with all its destruction and death. [Cf. Vatican II, Guadium et spes 78, 5]
13. Cellar Door - 9/7/2002 12:04:55 AM
Saddam Bad
Bush Good
(repeat ad infinitum)
14. jexster - 9/7/2002 12:09:13 AM
Fall 2002
Pax Christi USA
Iraq Peace Pledge/Iraq Pledge of Resistance
Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called children of God. (Matthew 5:9)
15. jexster - 9/7/2002 12:21:41 AM
Good Cllr I see you've gotten your hands on a copy of "Self-Hypnosis For the Brain Dead: Analgesic for Those In Agony of Thought - Republican National Committee"
16. ronski - 9/7/2002 12:22:09 AM
When neighbors fart on your new couch, at least there's Febreze.
When the JexsterBorg engulfs a new thread, there's no hope of removing the stench.
17. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 9/7/2002 8:31:03 AM
18. joezan - 9/7/2002 9:33:48 AM
Here is a link to the WP article jex linked up-thread, minus caps, underlines, exclamation points and swear words.
It seems as though GW may have found a way to at least make it look like he's going to play along, which is at first disconcerting (to me).
The dominant view within the administration is that the time for inspections has passed and that ultimately Hussein, who has barred inspectors since 1998, will have to be forcibly deposed. But White House officials have been persuaded that working through the United Nations, for the moment at least, is advisable and may ultimately facilitate military action.
But reading between the lines, I believe he has actually trumped the euros, UN, etc; in effect, he's saying Ok - inspections before invasion...BUT...we're gonna go whole-hog - on MY terms. (Knowing full well, of course, that Saddam will never agree to anything beyond the original terms - if he agrees to anything at all).
And when Saddam refuses, GW can say "See - we tried going the inspections route."
19. jexster - 9/7/2002 9:53:28 AM
He's lost Z...he can't even put together a coherent sentence.
GWB is a geopoltical incompetent. His decision apparatus is out of control. Because he hasn't the temperament, experience or intellect to match the strong personalities of his decision making team, the decision process has become an anarchy where the power to decide has now moved from inside the administration to newspapers, pundits, and other domestic and foreign political leaders. That is the end stage of a bureaucratic political disaster, and this is a bureaucratic political bumble that is without precedent in US history.
He stumbled consistently and repeatedly. He is lost.
That is why this:
PRESIDENT BUSH and Tony Blair ran into a wall of international opposition to their proposed military action against Iraq yesterday, after world leaders from Paris to Moscow and Beijing urged them to shelve their plans.
Wall of Opposition Meets Ball of Confusion
20. jexster - 9/7/2002 9:55:39 AM
The problem is he doesn't have "his" terms. We saw this happen in a far lower stakes, far less pressured environment last Spring when Powell convinced him to get tough on the middle east. That wasn't the Sharon/Kristol agenda and they took care of "his terms" in short order. Now Powell has struck back. But there are more players in the game now....
21. jexster - 9/7/2002 10:16:43 AM
- Ultimata are for adversaries not allies
= You cannot convince anyone that you are serious about inspections or Saddam's threat when everyone knows cause you have told them
22. jexster - 9/7/2002 10:22:01 AM
Pigshit lookin for a pretext - Any wonder those nations allegedly "at risk" oppose the effort to "save them?
No wonder at all not one bit.
Moussa said Arab states were seeking a diplomatic solution and had already helped bring Iraqi and U.N. officials together.
The ministerial resolutions on Iraq also called for lifting U.N. sanctions, an "interlinked and scheduled implementation of all the requirements of the Security Council resolutions," and a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction.
Speaking to reporters on his way out, Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri accused Israel of possessing weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear and other weapons.
Moussa accused the world community of double standards, complaining that while it insisted Iraq obey U.N. resolutions, it failed to measure Israel by the same yardstick concerning its occupation of Palestinian territory.
23. jexster - 9/7/2002 10:24:14 AM
24. jexster - 9/7/2002 10:30:21 AM Domestically, whipping up a froth of fear from what remains of 9-1-1 torments is all that backstops Bush's adventure (outside the usual suspects on thee lunatic fringe - we know you're out there).....that support ebbs with each passing day and will totally crumble once the invasion begins.... 25. jexster - 9/7/2002 10:33:48 AM Lunatic Fringe 26. jexster - 9/7/2002 10:52:16 AM The Politics and Process of Policy Making 101 - Today's Lesson - Spin Don't Stop Spun - Out of Control 27. jexster - 9/7/2002 10:52:58 AM An eye for an eye 28. jexster - 9/7/2002 11:09:17 AM Crawfish Walk Backwards - Blair to Push Coercive Inspection Compromise - Daily Telegraph 29. jexster - 9/7/2002 11:36:34 AM 30. Cellar Door - 9/7/2002 11:38:13 AM 31. jexster - 9/7/2002 1:07:49 PM If you're going to moderate a thread Z-legion, have the balls to set a current email address. 32. jexster - 9/7/2002 1:09:07 PM --- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors ----- 33. OhioSTOPAS - 9/7/2002 1:16:33 PM Re Message # 12: I liked Bush's description of Saddam as "crawfishing". 34. OhioSTOPAS - 9/7/2002 1:17:11 PM Jex, your toys are screwing up another thread. 35. jexster - 9/7/2002 1:23:36 PM 36. RustlerPike - 9/7/2002 1:26:49 PM Jexs: 37. Cellar Door - 9/7/2002 1:29:40 PM That's the whine of a right-winger losing an argument. 38. jexster - 9/7/2002 2:16:38 PM Why thank you RP, didn't know you cared and since you asked: 39. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 9/7/2002 6:40:45 PM Impressive resume, good Jexter. 40. joezan - 9/7/2002 10:16:52 PM I am a noted moral theologian whose arguments are now being advanced by a Jewess and US Senator 41. joezan - 9/7/2002 10:28:02 PM [From the link in the butterbar]: 42. joezan - 9/7/2002 10:29:20 PM [...continued] 43. joezan - 9/7/2002 10:41:24 PM The man the US is expected to deal with: 44. joezan - 9/7/2002 10:42:16 PM Saddam was silent for a moment, drawing thoughtfully on his cigar. 45. concerned - 9/8/2002 1:54:28 AM Damme! Jexster, Al Qaeda acolyte, sounds just like Sodamn Insane. 46. concerned - 9/8/2002 3:47:24 AM Saddam weapons are 'a very real threat to Britain', warns Tony Blair 47. concerned - 9/8/2002 3:50:42 AM 48. concerned - 9/8/2002 3:56:15 AM CellDoor's mantra: 49. concerned - 9/8/2002 4:07:15 AM Is another war with Saddam inevitable? 50. concerned - 9/8/2002 4:08:26 AM 'Course, that would piss off the 'hate Bush', 'love Saddam' Lefties no end. 51. wonkers2 - 9/8/2002 7:51:49 AM I'm not aware of any Saddam supporters in the U.S., lefty or righty. Plenty of both question Bush's ill-considered shift from our tried and true deter/contain policy which worked for fifty years against real enemies to one of pre-emptive first strikes against little pissant countries like Iraq. One of these days somebody will write the inside story of how that occurred, i.e, how the speechwriter, fed by Cheney, Perle, Rumsfeld, et al, stuck the words in front of the little monkey and got him to read them out loud in public. Somehow, it seems to me, it should take a little more than that to change our central defense policy. 52. robertjayb - 9/8/2002 1:28:46 PM Bushies crawfishing on assertions about Iraq...(MSNBC) 53. RustlerPike - 9/8/2002 1:36:05 PM When one man shouted that he was innocent, Saddam shouted back, "Itla! Itla!" "Get out! Get out!" (Weeks later, after secret trials, Saddam had the mouths of the accused taped shut so that they could utter no troublesome last words before their firing squads.) When all of the sixty "traitors" had been removed, Saddam again took the podium and wiped tears from his eyes as he repeated the names of those who had betrayed him. 54. Cellar Door - 9/8/2002 1:49:12 PM Outside of enjoying his performance in South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut I have never had anything positive to say about Saddam Hussein. 55. robertjayb - 9/8/2002 3:32:56 PM WHITE HOUSE ADMITS ERROR 56. robertjayb - 9/8/2002 3:41:10 PM Loud assertions are not evidence, particularly when they are false... 57. Cellar Door - 9/8/2002 4:30:53 PM Time to hit the video store again! 58. RustlerPike - 9/8/2002 8:55:44 PM Well, like I said, Sharon's spokesman told me the war was scheduled for January-February. I believe he said something about elections in November making an earlier date impossible. 59. RustlerPike - 9/8/2002 8:55:49 PM Well, like I said, Sharon's spokesman told me the war was scheduled for January-February. I believe he said something about elections in November making an earlier date impossible. 60. RustlerPike - 9/8/2002 8:56:50 PM I figured I'd say that twice, in case you didn't hear me the first time. 61. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 9/8/2002 9:17:28 PM 62. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 9/8/2002 9:27:20 PM الصحاف 63. jexster - 9/8/2002 9:28:09 PM LONDON, Sept. 6 — As a child, Lois Greenough spent nights in air-raid shelters, a raincoat thrown over her pajamas, during the Battle of Britain in World War II. At 68, she has seen enough of wartime aggression to know that she does not want to be on the side of the aggressor. 64. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 9/8/2002 9:30:11 PM Translation for those not as multilinginial as the good doctor: 65. jexster - 9/8/2002 9:33:03 PM Tony Blair and President George W Bush have agreed to topple Saddam Hussein by military means even if the United Nations does not pass a Security Council resolution authorising the use of force. 66. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 9/8/2002 9:39:16 PM A third open letter from Saddam Hussein to the peoples of the United States, Western peoples and governments. 67. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 9/8/2002 9:39:37 PM 68. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 9/8/2002 9:39:57 PM 69. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 9/8/2002 9:40:13 PM 70. jexster - 9/8/2002 9:42:36 PM SCOTT RITTER, a former American arms inspector, told the Iraqi parliament yesterday that President Bush was “on the verge of making an historical mistake” in threatening to depose Saddam Hussein. 71. judithathome - 9/8/2002 9:45:42 PM Well, he's going to be charged with being a traitor. Hope he likes living over there...I'd bet he's not allowed nack in this country. 72. judithathome - 9/8/2002 9:46:23 PM nack=back...must be reading too much XTC. 73. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 9/8/2002 9:49:22 PM 74. joezan - 9/8/2002 9:49:45 PM Hey Doc...you keep a collection of Saddam fashion photo links, or what? 76. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 9/8/2002 9:50:03 PM Error -2147217900 :[Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][SQL Server]Cannot insert the value NULL into column 'post_text', table 'themote.dbo.post'; column does not allow nulls. INSERT fails. 77. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 9/8/2002 9:51:22 PM The good doctor shall try to scan such a portraiture to oblige your polite request. 78. joezan - 9/8/2002 9:57:27 PM Judith: 79. jexster - 9/8/2002 9:58:59 PM Americans increasingly doubt that their government has done enough to protect them against terrorist attacks and are convinced, despite misgivings, that there will be a war against Iraq, the latest New York Times/CBS News poll shows. Majorities do not want war without Congressional and allied support first and a clear explanation from President Bush ( news - web sites). 80. joezan - 9/8/2002 9:59:30 PM ...In fact, look for Ritter to be making many more such appearances in the coming months - make hay while the sun shines, you know? 81. joezan - 9/8/2002 10:05:29 PM XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX SUNDAY SEPT 08, 2002 19:58:02 ET XXXXX 82. joezan - 9/8/2002 10:06:12 PM Lampsos claims Saddam uses an herbal relaxation mask to try to reduce wrinkles, dyes his hair 83. joezan - 9/8/2002 10:08:38 PM Whiskey on the rocks? 84. ronski - 9/8/2002 10:10:19 PM Charming. 85. joezan - 9/8/2002 10:15:05 PM Well, like I keep on saying - Iraq is just the first on the list (second, if you count Afghanistan).) 86. jexster - 9/8/2002 10:16:11 PM JAH - Traitor to what? To the War to Make Bush Believable? 87. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 9/8/2002 11:08:12 PM And more good and noble Jesters, by god! 88. jexster - 9/8/2002 11:20:44 PM Ritter's been on Saddam's payroll for quite some time - 89. jexster - 9/8/2002 11:32:47 PM Message # 81 90. jexster - 9/8/2002 11:59:25 PM Redneck Let's Fly Yet Another Nasty Green Loogie Out of Pickup Window 91. jexster - 9/9/2002 12:12:45 AM Just war theory is probably the most influential perspective on the ethics of war and peace. Though many of its themes were of Platonic origin, the Just War Theory's first exponent was St. Augustine of Hippo in the Fifth Century. Eight hundred years later, St. Thomas Acquinas further systematized the concept. Hugo Grotius, was the foremost exponent among the "secular" philosophers. 92. jexster - 9/9/2002 12:14:41 AM From "Catholic Teaching on Peace and War" (Diocese of Austin) 93. jexster - 9/9/2002 12:17:13 AM In the Second Vatican Council document “Pastoral Constitution in the Modern World” (Gaudium et Spes), the bishops of the whole Church wrote the following: 94. jexster - 9/9/2002 12:21:11 AM In the Second Vatican Council document “Pastoral Constitution in the Modern World” (Gaudium et Spes), the bishops of the whole Church wrote the following: 95. jexster - 9/9/2002 12:21:46 AM All those who enter the military service in loyalty to their country should look upon themselves as the custodians of the security and freedom of their fellow countrymen; and when they carry out their duty properly, they are contributing to the maintenance of peace.” (No. 79) 96. jexster - 9/9/2002 12:22:38 AM Proportionality: in the conduct of hostilities, efforts must be made to attain military objectives with no more force than is militarily necessary and to avoid disproportionate collateral damage to civilian life and property; 97. jexster - 9/9/2002 12:25:47 AM The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgement of those who have responsibility for the common good.” 98. jexster - 9/9/2002 12:50:33 AM My letter to DiFi "barely coherent email missives" (by the way Zan do you know what "missive" means or did you think that redundancies make you sound "intelligent"?) 99. jexster - 9/9/2002 12:52:03 AM 100. jexster - 9/9/2002 12:55:29 AM Please note that Bush's promise to "consult" with the UN and Congress is insufficient. You must not be a party to any consultation without a sure and certain committment that the Administration will seek not only congressional approval but Security Council sanction for any Bush schemes to enforce UN resolutions. 101. jexster - 9/9/2002 2:06:52 AM We'll close with a vocabulary exercise... 102. jexster - 9/9/2002 2:14:22 AM 9Then Jesus asked him, ‘What is your name?’ He replied, ‘My name is Legion; for we are many.’ 10He begged him earnestly not to send them out of the country. 11Now there on the hillside a great herd of swine was feeding; 12and the unclean spirits begged him, ‘Send us into the swine; let us enter them.’ 13So he gave them permission. And the unclean spirits came out and entered the swine; and the herd, numbering about two thousand, rushed down the steep bank into the sea, and were drowned in the sea 103. jexster - 9/9/2002 3:06:08 AM Is Zinni "on Sadaam's Payroll", Numbnuts? 104. concerned - 9/9/2002 3:21:23 AM The Times Online: Iraq Must Be Dealt With 105. jexster - 9/9/2002 3:53:41 AM Proponents of this adventure cannot, have not, and will not be able to muster other than the flimiest, most transparent justifications for their misbegotten course. 106. concerned - 9/9/2002 4:20:30 AM What would it take to change your mind, Jex? A Democrat president? 107. jexster - 9/9/2002 7:42:00 AM That would help...but we might start with more modest approach...an elected one.. 108. jexster - 9/9/2002 8:09:22 AM For the record, I do not rule out coercive options. I think deposited b4 in RP's urinal my "plan" for Iraq. 109. Cellar Door - 9/9/2002 11:19:05 AM MWO says: 110. Cellar Door - 9/9/2002 11:19:39 AM But as NBC reports, and the Washington Post confirms, the U.N. report in question emphatically did NOT say what Bush claimed it did. 111. Cellar Door - 9/9/2002 11:20:07 AM Sources in London tell MWO that Prime Minister Blair, who fell for the ruse, has been "very embarrassed" by the incident. 112. Cellar Door - 9/9/2002 11:20:20 AM 113. jexster - 9/9/2002 12:09:47 PM - the threatened damage must be lasting, grave, and certain; 114. jexster - 9/9/2002 12:14:19 PM Cllr...I am happy to see you speakin out against bullshit that piles up daily outta the Office of Strategery...this really smells 115. jexster - 9/9/2002 7:30:24 PM OpEd: Europe's choices IHT 116. Edmund Dantes - 9/9/2002 8:13:28 PM "If you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He's already demonstrated a willingness to use these weapons. He poison-gassed his own people. He used poison gas and other weapons of mass destruction against his neighbors. This man has no compunction about killing lots and lots of people. So [the Clinton administration's Operation Desert Fox, or massive four-day bombing of Iraq] is a way to save lives and to save the stability and peace of a region of the world that is important to the peace and security of the entire world." 117. Edmund Dantes - 9/9/2002 8:14:22 PM "Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction....If Saddam defies the world, and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors; he will make war on his own people; and mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them. Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future." 118. Edmund Dantes - 9/9/2002 8:19:01 PM So the question is, did Bill & Al solve the problem forever by bombing Iraq for four days in 1998? That is, in 1998, which was seven years after the Gulf War and with the inspector program in place, Bill & Al thought Saddam was so close to getting WMD that they couldn't even wait until after Ramadan to bomb him. 119. Edmund Dantes - 9/9/2002 8:19:34 PM International Institute for Strategic Studies 120. jexster - 9/9/2002 8:35:31 PM Not quite right there Ed...perhaps you should read the report again... 121. jexster - 9/9/2002 8:35:45 PM 122. jexster - 9/9/2002 8:40:29 PM So the question is, did Bill & Al solve the problem forever by bombing Iraq for four days in 1998? 123. jexster - 9/9/2002 8:45:13 PM The Bushies have been talking "threat" so loud and so long without anything new to back up this sudden discovery, that its almost like they are talking to themselves...in fact talking themselves into war... 124. Edmund Dantes - 9/9/2002 8:53:12 PM Not quite right there Ed...perhaps you should read the report again... 125. RustlerPike - 9/9/2002 9:00:06 PM Jexster is right. You shouldn't go to war against Saddam unless there is absolute proof that he possesses WMD and that they work. 126. Edmund Dantes - 9/9/2002 9:05:35 PM 1. What is the problem? 127. ronski - 9/9/2002 9:17:20 PM Pike is right. None of this inventing of grievances, like Sudetenland and Danzig. 128. Cellar Door - 9/9/2002 9:42:09 PM "If impeachment made it impossible for Clinton to do his job protecting the national security of the United States, he should have resigned. In contrast, he insisted it was not affecting his ability to do his job, and he in fact carried out several military operations with the timing suspect because of how they appeared to be attempts to distract from impeachment." 129. Edmund Dantes - 9/9/2002 10:06:36 PM Competence requires resignation for fear of "suspect timing." 130. joezan - 9/9/2002 11:43:14 PM 1. missive: A written message; a letter 131. Cellar Door - 9/10/2002 12:48:06 AM "Again, no. I have and have never had any real interest in Whitewater" 132. Cellar Door - 9/10/2002 12:49:43 AM "at least not as much interest as you have in the driving record of the "FIRST LADY" when she was a 17 year old." 133. concerned - 9/10/2002 1:14:12 AM More bad news for Jexster: Jacques Chirac moving toward removing Iraqi Madman dictator 134. concerned - 9/10/2002 1:25:18 AM excerpted: 135. RustlerPike - 9/10/2002 2:17:39 AM Joe: 136. concerned - 9/10/2002 2:23:22 AM Who says nationalism is RW? There's more cases in point on the Left. 137. alistairconnor - 9/10/2002 6:14:31 AM Intriguingly, Chirac's position has not been reported today in France. 138. wonkers2 - 9/10/2002 8:43:12 AM There are two very long front page articles on the 9/11 attack and al Qaida in today's NYT. 139. Wombat - 9/10/2002 8:59:11 AM Chirac has provided Bush with the methodology for bringing Europe and reluctant allies behind him, and giving a move against Iraq both the cause and the legitimacy it currently lacks. Bush would be an idiot not to follow that path, even if the delay means that he will reap no short-term political benefit. 140. wonkers2 - 9/10/2002 10:23:33 AM 141. wonkers2 - 9/10/2002 10:24:57 AM I missed Chirac's methodology for bringing our allies along. What does he suggest? 142. Marc-Albert - 9/10/2002 10:42:54 AM "Chirac has provided Bush with the methodology for bringing Europe and reluctant allies behind him" 143. alistairconnor - 9/10/2002 10:50:37 AM Scoop : 144. joezan - 9/10/2002 10:53:22 AM ...and then, CHECKMATE. 145. alistairconnor - 9/10/2002 11:02:12 AM I believe that several European nations might end up on board if there were to be a Security Council mandate. They really have little choice. If the US is going to go ahead anyway, as it appears... well, it's Europe which is left with handling the mess. Kurdish refugees can walk to France or Germany if they have to. 146. PelleNilsson - 9/10/2002 11:28:12 AM I still find it difficult to believe that Jordan will take part in an attack. However, the news of unusually heavy US/British bomb raids in western Iraq last week takes on new significance. There is a military airfield there at a place called H3 (a pumping station on the defunct Iraq-Jordan pipeline) which could serve as a bridgehead for the US. 147. Wombat - 9/10/2002 12:01:59 PM If Iraq refuses to accept the Security Council's ultimatum on inspections, then any attack would not be preemptive, but in response to a violation of a UN resolution (Iraq has been in violation of them since the Gulf War ended, but never mind...) 148. jexster - 9/10/2002 12:24:52 PM It remains to be seen whether T. Friedman's Declaration of the PantyWaist's Victory over the Forces of Krustified Klownish KhickenHawk Darkness is correct or premature. 149. jexster - 9/10/2002 1:14:00 PM He came to office largely ignorant of foreign affairs. His team split immediately—and deeply—after his Inauguration into two fiercely divided camps, and is already scarred by the pitched battles between the conservative wing, led by Vice President Dick Cheney, and the pragmatists under Secretary of State Colin Powell 150. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/10/2002 1:22:20 PM 151. jexster - 9/10/2002 1:24:12 PM Zan is such pathetic Old Glorified Moron... 152. jexster - 9/10/2002 1:25:27 PM Bush By the Balls 153. jexster - 9/10/2002 1:26:08 PM What a fear mongering clown...total loss of control...pathetic 154. jexster - 9/10/2002 1:49:07 PM 155. jexster - 9/10/2002 2:19:51 PM Since learning from Zan that the 1600 year old Catholic Moral Teaching on Just War is "wacky lefty", I decided to investigate what if anything might be more mainstream, anything thing besides "Saddam uses viagra" 156. jexster - 9/10/2002 2:23:56 PM As BoyBlunder takes the stage...ask yourselves... 157. robertjayb - 9/10/2002 2:38:15 PM 158. OhioSTOPAS - 9/10/2002 3:07:05 PM I don't know. While good, I think Prime Minister Blair's speech could have been improved with a few colloquialisms. 159. ronski - 9/10/2002 4:09:41 PM Of course there are crawfish (crayfish) in England. 160. wonkers2 - 9/10/2002 6:09:45 PM Jex, Are you sure "Satan's Filthy Little Secret" is a parody? Tampons are probably illegal as well as immoral in a bunch of countries. I can remember when selling condoms was illegal in Connecticut thanks to the power of the Roman Catholic church. 161. jexster - 9/10/2002 8:55:25 PM Speaking of JoeZ, Satan, and tampons... 162. jexster - 9/10/2002 9:44:59 PM 163. PelleNilsson - 9/11/2002 2:34:48 AM From The Economist: 164. concerned - 9/11/2002 2:46:33 AM Btw, the Rice quite is an excellent thread header blurb. 165. concerned - 9/11/2002 2:46:41 AM Btw, the Rice quote is an excellent thread header blurb. 166. concerned - 9/11/2002 2:53:02 AM Joe - could you please delete 164 and this post? TIA. 167. jexster - 9/11/2002 12:11:00 PM WASHINGTON, Sept. 10 ? Senior intelligence officials acknowledged today that the government had not compiled an updated, cross-agency assessment of Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons capacities, although the Bush administration is pressing for a quick statement of support for military action against Saddam Hussein. 168. jexster - 9/11/2002 12:11:29 PM the Rice quite is an excellent thread header blurb. 169. jexster - 9/11/2002 12:20:07 PM [C] AIRO, Sept. 10 — Anger at the United States, embedded in the belief that the Bush administration lends unstinting support to Israel at the expense of the Palestinians, is at an unparalleled high across the Arab world, according to analysts and diplomats in the region. 170. jexster - 9/11/2002 12:22:01 PM They talked bitterly of the United States behaving like an 18th-century imperial power with policies based on racism and gunpowder. The main difference between the United States today and the marauding forces of Genghis Khan was that Washington was able to project its power all over the globe, said one person who was interviewed who insisted on anonymity. 171. RustlerPike - 9/11/2002 2:45:09 PM Pelle: 172. PelleNilsson - 9/11/2002 2:58:52 PM No, it's incurable. But it's good for you. 173. JJBiener - 9/11/2002 3:05:30 PM Pike - There must be some kind of pill you can take when you start feeling European - isn't there? 174. Wombat - 9/11/2002 3:07:49 PM And remember, the enema of my enema is my friend. 175. jonesatlaw - 9/11/2002 3:15:54 PM Lets see, we contain Stalin, and all the other Soviets for half a century with the threat of a overwhelming strategic counter strike. We know that they have sophisticated ICBMs, with some of them MIRV'd. All with heavy throw weights, sufficient to compensate for their poorer accuracy compared to American missles. They also have balistic missle subs with hulls which allow them to dive deeper than our subs, patrolling off our coasts. 176. thoughtful - 9/11/2002 3:17:19 PM From the New Yorker: 177. thoughtful - 9/11/2002 3:17:59 PM toy check 178. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/11/2002 4:13:13 PM 179. jexster - 9/11/2002 9:09:26 PM 180. jexster - 9/11/2002 9:11:08 PM E-mail missive is redundant Joey 181. jexster - 9/11/2002 9:15:15 PM and BTW case I never mentioned it I know all about how Senators & Congressthings deal with email missives as well as letter missives...having read/answered a few myself back in the days when they used green eyeshades and quills to answer letter missives...we didn't have email missives back then... 182. jexster - 9/11/2002 9:24:22 PM Message # 133 183. jexster - 9/11/2002 9:29:01 PM it's Bush and Blair on one side and all the others on the other side. Which is slightly different. 184. jexster - 9/11/2002 9:29:46 PM Do you need any help understanding that? 185. jexster - 9/11/2002 9:36:43 PM Congressional Democrats said yesterday that classified briefings by President Bush's top advisers have failed to make a compelling case for quick military action against Iraq, and several leaders said Congress should wait until after the November elections before voting to authorize a strike against Saddam Hussein's regime. 186. jexster - 9/11/2002 9:38:18 PM "The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." --- Condoleezza Rice 187. jexster - 9/11/2002 9:51:20 PM In a letter to Bush yesterday, Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) and Sen. Richard G. Lugar ( R-Ind.) wrote: "There is not consensus on many critical questions" about the use of force in Iraq. 188. jexster - 9/11/2002 10:01:09 PM 189. jexster - 9/11/2002 10:09:30 PM Since only TD seems to believe that this UN gambit that Chirac is pressing is real (not even Chirac believes otherwise)..the rest of can appreciate this from the DailyT 190. jexster - 9/11/2002 10:11:26 PM The only real question about international support for the War to Make Bush Believable is not how many allies the Boy Blunder will gain, but whether he will lose the only real ally he has. I am not talking about the Izzies. I am talking about Blair. 191. jexster - 9/11/2002 10:18:33 PM Marc-Albert.. 192. jexster - 9/11/2002 10:49:55 PM L'etendard sanglant est levee 193. jexster - 9/11/2002 10:55:50 PM One British official insisted, however, that Mr Powell was still "in the driving seat", because Mr Bush had "bought the Powell-Blair line" that it was essential to go to the United Nations before unleashing war on Saddam Hussein. 194. jexster - 9/11/2002 11:07:14 PM April 19 2002 195. Edmund Dantes - 9/11/2002 11:11:04 PM By my count jexster made 84 out of the first 194 posts in this thread, including the 16 posts in a row prior to this. 196. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/11/2002 11:24:37 PM From another site: 197. ronski - 9/11/2002 11:41:10 PM Nobody with an ounce of brains has ever suggested the Islamists hate our cell phones. 198. ronski - 9/11/2002 11:45:23 PM Eddie, 199. joezan - 9/12/2002 12:22:58 AM My very thoughts, people. 200. concerned - 9/12/2002 12:27:06 AM Re. 188 - 201. concerned - 9/12/2002 12:29:14 AM Pelle: 202. sakonige - 9/12/2002 1:24:12 AM I'll post replies to Jexster if that will make you feel better. 203. sakonige - 9/12/2002 1:25:04 AM He's about the only contributor to this site I read anymore, anyway. 204. concerned - 9/12/2002 1:34:15 AM Re. 202 - 205. alistairconnor - 9/12/2002 4:28:43 AM No, Jex, the French position does seem to be shifting significantly. Alain Juppé broke a taboo this morning, saying stern things to the effect that "we" must be prepared to take coercive action against Saddam... He's clearly Chirac's pilot fish on this. I have a feeling that the propaganda machine is going to kick in shortly, just like for Gulf War I, using the 9/11 emotion to legitimize Gulf War II. 206. jexster - 9/12/2002 10:01:22 AM
ASHINGTON, Sept. 6 — President Bush called the leaders of Russia, China and France today to seek their support as he tried to build an international coalition against Saddam Hussein, but he appeared, in his initial approaches, to have made little headway in convincing them that the need for action was urgent.
Advertisement
Soon after his talk with Russia's president, Vladimir V. Putin, the Kremlin spokesman said Mr. Putin had expressed "serious doubts that there are grounds for the use of force in connection with Iraq from the standpoint of international law or from a political standpoint."
France's president, Jacques Chirac, insisted anew that any military action had to come with the approval of the United Nations. Kofi Annan, the United Nations secretary general, said after meeting with Mr. Chirac that "it would be unwise to attack Iraq now."
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/07/international/middleeast/07PREX.html target=New>Dazed & Confused
George Bush is a geopolitical incompetent. He has allowed a clique of hawks to induce him to take a position on invading Iraq from which he cannot extract himself, one that will have nothing but negative consequences for the United States - and the rest of the world. He will find himself badly hurt politically, perhaps fatally. And he will rapidly diminish the already declining power of the US in the world.
Bush has no choice. He will invade Iraq. He has made clear the Middle East crisis will not deter him from this. Quite the opposite. And we shall all live with the consequences
Lunatic Fringe
I know you're out there
You're in hiding
And you hold your meetings
We can hear you coming
We know what you're after
We're wise to you this time
We won't let you kill the laughter
Lunatic Fringe
In the twilight's last gleaming
This is open season
But you won't get too far
We know you've got to blame someone
For your own confusion
But we're on guard this time
Against your final solution
We can hear you coming
(We can hear you coming)
No you're not going to win this time
We can hear the footsteps
(We can hear the footsteps)
Way out along the walkway
Lunatic Fringe
We know you're out there
But in these new dark ages
There will still be light
An eye for an eye
Well, before you go under
Can you feel the resistance
Can you feel the...thunder
Hypothesis: Message # 19
Key Republican Busts Bush's Balls
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The chairman of a key intelligence committee in the U.S. Congress said on Saturday that the United States must deal with Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein ( news - web sites) like a malignant cancer.
"The long history of Saddam's activities puts us very much on alert that we have to deal with him. And it's a little bit like a cancer. When you know you've got a malignancy, it's better to get at it sooner rather than later," said Rep. Porter Goss, the influential chairman of the House of Representatives Select Intelligence Committee.
In a transcript of CNN's Novak Hunt & Shields program, Goss, a Florida Republican, said he did not know "the full extent" of Iraq's development of nuclear weapons.
"We know that efforts are being made, but I'm going to have to leave it to the president of the United States to go into the levels that he wishes to discuss ... publicly," he said.
Well, before you go under
Can you feel the resistance
Can you feel the...thunder
History has called us, George W. Bush likes to say, but what if history has already moved on?
As a senior Bush adviser bluntly declared earlier this year: 'The way to win international acceptance is to win. That's called diplomacy: winning.' If other countries get restive, U.S. officials say, who cares? Even ganged up, they will be weaker than the U.S. alone...A presidency based on moral principles requires consistency, and Bush has not always displayed it. He calls for democracy in Iraq and Palestine-but not in such U.S.-friendly autocracies as Saudi Arabia. He is an avowed free-trader, but he has boosted domestic farm subsidies and protectionist tariffs on foreign steel... Many of these Republicans were surprised in January when Bush's strategist Karl Rove said the g.o.p. will make the President's 'handling of the war on terrorism the centerpiece' of its plan to win back the Senate and keep the House in November...No man who lost the popular vote can ignore his re-election (sic) for very long..."
History Moves On - Bush Stumbles Along - Wag the Puppy (Time Magazine)
Catholic Teaching on Peace and War - Diocese of AUSTIN http://www.austindiocese.org/Sept11/war-and-peace_1.htm
Pax Christi USA http://www.paxchristiusa.org/
Pax Christi International http://www.paxchristi.net/body_index.html
The Presiding Bishop's statement
on military action against Iraq - Episcopal Church News Service
Why Bush will go to war on Iraq By Immanuel Wallerstein
April 19 2002 http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/04/18/1019020682608.html
The Eagle Has Crash Landed - Immanuel Wallerstein - Foreign Policy Magazine http://www.foreignpolicy.com/issue_julyaug_2002/wallerstein.html
From Defense & The National Interest
Is Egypt in Play & Why is it the Prize? August 16, 2002 http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/comments/c457.htm
Werther Report: Is Preemption a Nuclear Schlieffen Plan? July 20, 2002 Comment: #453 http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/comments/c453.htm
The Guardian - Special Report on Iraq http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/0,2759,423009,00.html
(reason: 554 delivery error: dd Sorry your message to zanfo58@yahoo.com cannot be delivered. This account has been disabled or discontinued [#102]. - mta562.mail.yahoo.com)
JoeZ - Permanent & fatal errors, brain disabled, balls discontinued
But in the same sentence he saed Saddam has "wheedled out of agreements". When has Saddam ever "wheedled"? I assume the President meant "WEASELED out . . ."
Lunatic Fringe - Red Ryder - MIDI
Are you, like, even partly employed?
I am a full time student:
Econ 311- Econ Stats I
Public Administration 720 - Microeconomics
Econ 505 - Public Finance
Econ 535 - Urban Economics
I am a partime lawyer - Sole practitioner with one current dispute against one of the top 10 SF law firms
I am a noted moral theologian whose arguments are now being advanced by a Jewess and US Senator
I am an incisive political commentator who correctly predicted, among other things, the current BumbleFuck From DC
And when I have time, I maintain a casual e-mail relationship with a retired planning adjutant to the US Joint Chiefs of Staff; demolish any and all arguments advanced on behalf of the War to Make Bush Believable; exorcise JoeZan’s legion; give Ronski gas - all with a delightful multi-media environment
And you RP?
Sit on a hillside breaking wind; play with your GoyToy; keep careful books of account for your 15 minutes of fame and grouse about how women have castrated you.
I miss anything?
Lifetime learning, tis the motto of yours truly.
(Yawn)
Jex advances every wacked out lefty theory here in The Mote - some admittedly rather...original (ahem), touches them up some, and then copies them into barely coherent email missives which he then spends part of his 18 hours a day of playtime sending off to any and every elected official in America.
One Senator happens to say something jex had also said (as if these guys ever read their email), and jex promotes himself to Senior Advisor.
BTW, all - sorry if my lack of email addy has inconvenienced anyone - I'm getting it fixed with Ms.No as I type.
On July 18, 1979, he invited all the members of the Revolutionary Command Council and hundreds of other party leaders to a conference hall in Baghdad. He had a video camera running in the back of the hall to record the event for posterity. Wearing his military uniform, he walked slowly to the lectern and stood behind two microphones, gesturing with a big cigar. His body and broad face seemed weighted down with sadness. There had been a betrayal, he said. A Syrian plot. There were traitors among them. Then Saddam took a seat, and Muhyi Abd al-Hussein Mashhadi, the secretary-general of the Command Council, appeared from behind a curtain to confess his own involvement in the putsch. He had been secretly arrested and tortured days before; now he spilled out dates, times, and places where the plotters had met. Then he started naming names. As he fingered members of the audience one by one, armed guards grabbed the accused and escorted them from the hall.
When one man shouted that he was innocent, Saddam shouted back, "Itla! Itla!"—"Get out! Get out!" (Weeks later, after secret trials, Saddam had the mouths of the accused taped shut so that they could utter no troublesome last words before their firing squads.) When all of the sixty "traitors" had been removed, Saddam again took the podium and wiped tears from his eyes as he repeated the names of those who had betrayed him. Some in the audience, too, were crying—perhaps out of fear. This chilling performance had the desired effect. Everyone in the hall now understood exactly how things would work in Iraq from that day forward. The audience rose and began clapping, first in small groups and finally as one. The session ended with cheers and laughter. The remaining "leaders"—about 300 in all—left the hall shaken, grateful to have avoided the fate of their colleagues, and certain that one man now controlled the destiny of their entire nation. Videotapes of the purge were circulated throughout the country.
...Together Saddam and al-Ali had a meeting with the new Foreign Minister of Iran. Four years earlier Saddam had made a surprise concession to the soon-to-be-deposed Shah, reaching an agreement on navigation in the Shatt-al-Arab, a sixty-mile strait formed by the confluence of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers as they flow into the Persian Gulf. Both countries had long claimed the strait. In 1979...relations between the two countries were again strained, and the waters of the Shatt-al-Arab were a potential flash point. Both countries still claimed ownership of two small islands in the strait, which were then controlled by Iran.
But al-Ali was surprised by the tone of the discussions in Cuba. The Iranian representatives were especially agreeable, and Saddam seemed to be in an excellent mood. After the meeting al-Ali strolled with Saddam in a garden outside the meeting hall. They sat on a bench as Saddam lit a big cigar.
"Well, Salah, I see you are thinking of something," Saddam said. "What are you thinking about?" "I am thinking about the meeting we just had, Mr. President. I am very happy. I'm very happy that these small problems will be solved. I'm so happy that they took advantage of this chance to meet with you and not one of your ministers, because with you being here we can avoid another problem with them. We are neighbors. We are poor people. We don't need another war. We need to rebuild our countries, not tear them down."
"Salah, how long have you been a diplomat now?" he asked.
"About ten years."
"Do you realize, Salah, how much you have changed?"
"How, Mr. President?"
"How should we solve our problems with Iran? Iran took our lands. They are controlling the Shatt-al-Arab, our big river. How can meetings and discussions solve a problem like this? Do you know why they decided to meet with us here, Salah? They are weak is why they are talking with us. If they were strong there would be no need to talk. So this gives us an opportunity, an opportunity that only comes along once in a century. We have an opportunity here to recapture our territories and regain control of our river."
That was when al-Ali realized that Saddam had just been playing with the Iranians, and that Iraq was going to go to war. Saddam had no interest in diplomacy. To him, statecraft was just a game whose object was to outmaneuver one's enemies. Someone like al-Ali was there to maintain a pretense, to help size up the situation, to look for openings, and to lull foes into a false sense of security. Within a year the Iran-Iraq war began.
It ended horrifically, eight years later, with hundreds of thousands of Iranians and Iraqis dead. To a visitor in Baghdad the year after the war ended, it seemed that every other man on the street was missing a limb. The country had been devastated. The war had cost Iraq billions. Saddam claimed to have regained control of the Shatt-al-Arab. Despite the huge losses, he was giddy with victory. By 1987 his army, swelled by compulsory service and modern Western armaments, was the fourth largest in the world. He had an arsenal of Scud missiles, a sophisticated nuclear-weapons program under way, and deadly chemical and biological weapons in development. He immediately began planning more conquest.
How many 9/11's or worse would it take for the likes of Jexster to get off his 'hate Bush' schtick? More than is humanly conscionable, that's for sure.
An Islamic Stalin with plenty of US Lefty supporters.
Sodamn good asshole.
Bush bad.
'Course he's always said that...so what else is new?
it'd be a very good thing worthy of much praise if GWB could transition Iraq to a Democracy without a full scale conflict, of course.
Seeking to build a case Saturday that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction, President Bush cited a satellite photograph and a report by the U.N. atomic energy agency as evidence of Iraq’s impending rearmament. But in response to a report by NBC News, a senior administration official acknowledged Saturday night that the U.N. report drew no such conclusion, and a spokesman for the U.N. agency said the photograph had been misinterpreted.
Oh my goodness! Mistakes were made. What a shame that these things happen. But it's only war and peace we're talking about here. Not S.E.X.
I saw that video.
And connie is well aware of this.
A senior White House official acknowledged Saturday night that the 1998 report did not say what Bush claimed. “What happened was, we formed our own conclusions based on the report,” (i.e., we're making it up) the official told NBC News’ Norah O’Donnell.
...a spokesman for the U.N. agency, disputed Bush’s and Blair’s assessment of the satellite photograph, which was first publicized Friday. Contrary to news service reports, there was no specific photo or building that aroused suspicions, he told Windrem.
The photograph in question was not U.N. intelligence imaging but simply a picture from a commercial satellite imaging company, he said. 
عمان 8/9/2002
استقبل السيد زيد الرفاعي رئيس مجلس الاعيان الاردني في عمان اليوم السيد محمد سعيد الصحاف وزير الاعلام .
وحمل السيد الرفاعي خلال المقابلة السيد محمد سعيد الصحاف تحياته الى السيد الرئيس صدام حسين .. معربا عن حبه واحترامه وتقديره لسيادته والشعب العراقي العظيم .
وقدم السيد الوزير شرحا حول التهديدات العدوانية الامريكية ضد العراق وموقف العراق من هذه التهديدات وسياسة التفرد الامريكي والنظرة المجتزأة الى القرارات الدولية والانتقائية في التعامل معها .
واوضح ان امريكا لا تستهدف العراق لوحده وانما الامة العربية اجمع .. مؤكدا رغبة العراق مواصلة الحوار مع الامم المتحدة رغم المحاولات الامريكية الهادفة الى افشاله مشددا على اهمية الحوار من اجل التوصل الى حل لكل القضايا المعلقة .
ويذكر ان السيد محمد سعيد الصحاف كان قد وصل الى عمان يوم الجمعة الماضي على رأس وفد اعلامي لحضور فعاليات الاسبوع الثقافي العراقي التي بدأت اليوم وتستمر ستة ايام.
"If Tony Blair wants to go to war, he should go himself, and not send any troops in,"
Like many Britons, Ms. Greenough by turns feels puzzled, outraged and fearful of the consequences of Britain's growing importance in President Bush's anti-Iraq plans. She feels that events have spun quickly out of control, that Mr. Blair has overstepped his mandate and that Britain is in danger of joining a conflict its people do not support.
Opposition Growing to Blair Stand on Iraq
Why Iraq Rejects Stupid US Sanctions?
President Saddam Hussein has said: "In brief, the U.S plan is an implicit or explicit admission that the embargo, which the evildoers have imposed in the misbelief of placing Iraq under the category of those obeying orders, has failed to achieve its intended political target.
At a Cabinet meeting on May 21, 2001, President Hussein said, "we will reject the so-called smart sanctions, which are more stupid than their predecessors, just as we did when rejecting all that could encroach upon Iraq's dignity, honour, independence and the meanings it has fought for throughout history."
The President described the plan as "a kick of a dying mule which we should beware of, but it will miss its target, God willing."
Deputy Prime Minister and Acting Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz said at a meeting with the Arab ambassadors accredited to Iraq on May 21, 2001, "the United States, having realized that the embargo is falling apart, has resorted to the smart sanctions ploy with the specific aim of regaining control of the region's affairs and imposing its will at the expense of the interests of all parties and friends dealing with Iraq.
At a meeting with editors-in-chief of local newspapers and media on May 23, 2001, Tariq Aziz said, "the so-called smart sanctions are more stupid than the sanctions imposed on Iraq in 1990. All that has been said to the effect that the plan will ease Iraqi people's suffering, is a sheer lie. In all its attempts, the U.S administration has one aim in mind, to deny Iraq access to many equipment and items that may contribute to the country's advancement and sustain local industry."
Aziz also said, "the U.S draft will not take effect for two reasons, Iraq's will and rejective stand on the one hand, and its regional, Arab and international position with all its political and economic elements. Besides
The decision, taken at a summit at Camp David, the presidential retreat 60 miles from Washington, commits Britain to an almost certain war that could be launched before Christmas
Daily Telegraph
Mr Ritter called on Iraq to prove that it was no longer capable of producing weapons of mass destruction by opening itself to inspections.
In what appeared to be a propaganda coup for Saddam,Mr Ritter, who resigned from the United Nations weapons inspection team in 1998, told the Iraqi deputies that it was his own Government that was bringing the world to the brink of disaster, not theirs. “My country seems to be on the verge of making an historical mistake set forth on a policy of unilateral intervention that runs contrary to the letter and intent of the UN Charter”.
He said: “The rhetoric of fear that is disseminated by my Government has not, to date, been backed by hard facts that substantiate any allegations that Iraq is today in possession of weapons of mass destruction or has links to terror groups responsible for September 11 attacks on the United States.“Bush and Blair are gearing up to go to war on Iraq based on unsubstantiated allegations that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. The Bush Administration itself has said repeatedly that, while they call for the return of inspectors, this will not prevent them from continuing to seek regime change in Iraq. So my timing is designed precisely to expose the hypocrisy of the Bush position.”
During the nearly seven years that the UN was permitted to conduct inspections, Iraq had been certified as being disarmed to a 90-95 per cent level, he said. Mr Ritter, who served in the US Marines during the 1991 Gulf War, headed visits to several sensitive sites in Iraq that led to tense stand-offs with the Iraqi authorities.
”
Times of London
Personally, I like the Saddam in fedora, overcoat, and big fat cigar shots - looks like he should be the Mayor of New York.
You got any like that?
in insert_post
executing EXEC ins_post 150, 999, 'Dr.XavierTColtrane', NULL
Ritter's been on Saddam's payroll for quite some time -which, when you think about it, is Saddam's real pr coup.
In any case, if he hasn't been charged by now, it ain't gonna happen.
...of course, Mr. Ritter's status as a free agent will necessarily change once hostilities have increased sufficiently.
One year after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon ( news - web sites), about half of the public said the Bush administration did not have a clear plan to fight terrorism, and nearly as many said they felt somewhat uneasy and not safe from another terrorist attack.
A quarter of the public, but a third of those in the Northeast, said they feared an attack in their area. One American in 10 said the administration had made "a lot of progress" in eliminating terrorist threats from nations besides Afghanistan ( news - web sites).
The survey portrayed a hesitant nation with a sense of inevitability and little of the eager combativeness that surrounded the reaction to the bombing of terrorist targets in Afghanistan last year. A large majority said it expected the American forces to "end up fighting against Iraq."
One-fourth said Iraq presented such a grave threat that the United States should act now, while two-thirds said the nation needed to wait for support from its allies 
Nyt 
ABC NEWS EXCLUSIVE: SADDAM SEX, USES VIAGRA, SAYS MISTRESS
Iraqi President Saddam Hussein needs help in the bedroom, ABC NEWS is set to report in an
exclusive interview with his alleged mistress.
The Dictator of Baghdad may not be all the man he's cracked up to be, reporter Claire Shipman
will reveal -- he uses Viagra for sex sessions!
The provocative interview is to be aired nationally this week.
Shipman traveled to a safe house in the hills of Lebanon for the big
exclusive with Parisoula Lampsos.
Lampsos says she saw Hussein on almost a daily basis for years and is
able to provide unique insight into what the dictator was saying,
thinking and feeling behind closed doors.
Not to mention his physical prowess in bed.
Claire Shipman goes where few network reporters have gone before -- and
zeros in on Saddam's sexual appetites.
On Saddam's use of Viagra:
LAMPSOS:
He took sometime.
SHIPMAN:
He took Viagra.
LAMPSOS:
Yeah, sometimes, yes.
SHIPMAN:
And did it help? Did he think it helped him?
LAMPSOS:
Yes, of course...
SHIPMAN:
Was he affectionate?
LAMPSOS:
Yeah. He was tender, he was warm, he was nice.
SHIPMAN:
Did he force you to have sex with him?
LAMPSOS:
Saddam, he don't need to force anybody. Because...you are afraid, you are afraid to say no....
I was with him because I was afraid of him...
SHIPMAN:
What is Saddam Hussein's favorite drink?
LAMPSOS:
Whiskey...on the rocks with ice.
and likes to wear suits by Pierre Cardin.
Lampsos now wears a veil to disguise herself on the street because she fears retribution for
telling her story, which will air Thursday on ABC's PRIMETIME [10 PM ET/9 PM CT].
shipman's interview is more than Sex Journalism.
Lampsos, 54, who left Iraq a year ago, not only offers stories of the Iraqi dictator's personal
life that she says few others know, but tells of his alleged effort to have his oldest son
killed, his take on President George W. Bush, his extreme vanity and love of American films and
music.
Lampsos tells Shipman how Saddam's favorite movie is the GODFATHER. And his favorite song is
"Strangers in the Night."
SHIPMAN:
He likes Frank Sinatra?
LAMPSOS:
Yeah
SHIPMAN:
And would he play it, would he dance to that?
LAMPSOS:
Sometimes.
Lampsos says Saddam swims almost every day, drinks milk and honey in the morning and his
favorite food for dinner is fresh gazelle. She says he raises and nurtures the gazelles -- and
then handpicks each one to be slaughtered for his meal.
Hussein met Osama bin Laden on two occasions and gave money to the al Qaeda leader in 1996,
Lampos explains to the cameras.
Frank Sinatra?
Fedoras with long overcoats?
Maybe he is planning on running for Mayor of New York?
Expressing pleasure at meeting the man who made Kurdish children watch their mothers die and Kurdish mothers watch their children die hideous deaths from biological warfare.
Let's hear it for Arab solidarity!
The man is a patriot for speaking Truth to Power. More than a little controversial & confrontational in his approach, but the substance of his remarks is beyond reproach.
When the bodybags start coming home; when we're stuck for 10-20 years running Iraq behind some puppet facade; when it costs us $100 billion for the War for Little Napoleon's Big Mouth; when we've lost all influence in the Middle East; when the conservative ME regimes fall to a frenzy of Muslim radicalism; when Muslim countries balk at providing the intelligence and police work that we need to fight the REAL WAR on TERRORISM, and when we taste the first hellish fruit of the brave new world of pre-emptive war -
We'll be wishing that there were more Scott Ritters; James Bakers; Brent Scowcroft's, and Chuck Hagels.
Iraq is not paying Ritter. Ritter has testified twice before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. If he literally was "on Saddam's payroll", he would have had to register as an agent of a foreign government in order to lobby Congress and testify.
Fucking illuminating.
Jex advances every wacked out lefty theory here in The Mote - some admittedly rather...original (ahem), touches them up some, and then copies them into barely coherent email missives which he then spends part of his 18 hours a day of playtime sending off to any and every elected official in America.
One Senator happens to say something jex had also said (as if these guys ever read their email), and jex promotes himself to Senior Advisor.
Must have had a special on instant ad hominem mix at Walmart this weekend.
The Christian Doctrine of Just War, "a wacko lefty idea" is it? To a fundamentalist, it probably is.
Time for a few lessons I see.
Many of the rules developed by the just war tradition have since been codified into contemporary international laws governing armed conflict, such as The Hague and Geneva Conventions. The tradition has thus been doubly influential, dominating both moral and legal discourse surrounding war.
Oct. 12, 2001
The foundation of Catholic Social Teaching is the sanctity of human life. This principle guided the earliest followers of Jesus to a position of pacifism, or rejection of violence, as a means for resolving conflict. By the fourth century, Christianity was no longer persecuted, but was the official religion of the Roman Empire, an empire that was now crumbling. In the face of the aggressive attacks of the Vandals on his community, St. Augustine of Hippo articulated a theology that developed into what is known as the “just war” theory, or conditions under which Christians would be justified in taking up arms.
What St. Augustine began was continued and refined by St. Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century. His just war principles could be summarized as:
“war must be declared by the authority of the state;
there must be a just cause; the intention must be just;
war must be the last resort;
only right means may be employed in the conduct of war;
there must be a reasonable hope of victory;
the good to be achieved must outweigh the evils of war.”
(from What Are They Saying about Peace and War, by Thomas A Shannon, Paulist Press, 1983)
“War of course, has not ceased to be part of the human scene. As long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed. State leaders and all who share the burdens of public administration have the duty to defend the interests of their people and to conduct such grave matters with a deep sense of responsibility. However, it is one thing to wage a war of self-defense; it is quite another to seek to impose domination on another nation. The possession of war potential does not justify the use of force for political or military objectives. Nor does the mere fact that war has unfortunately broken out mean that all is fair between the warring parties.
All those who enter the military service in loyalty to their country should look upon themselves as the custodians of the security and freedom of their fellow countrymen; and when they carry out their duty properly, they are contributing to the maintenance of peace.” (No. 79)
“War of course, has not ceased to be part of the human scene. As long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed. State leaders and all who share the burdens of public administration have the duty to defend the interests of their people and to conduct such grave matters with a deep sense of responsibility. However, it is one thing to wage a war of self-defense; it is quite another to seek to impose domination on another nation. The possession of war potential does not justify the use of force for political or military objectives. Nor does the mere fact that war has unfortunately broken out mean that all is fair between the warring parties.
The “Catechism of the Catholic Church” addresses the issues of peace and war in articles 2302-2317. Specifically in article 2309, the Catechism outlines “the strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force… At one and the same time:
The damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave and certain;
All other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
There must be serious prospects of success;
The use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluation of this condition.
Right Intention: even in the midst of conflict, the aim of political and military leaders must be peace with justice, so that acts of vengeance and indiscriminate violence, whether by individuals, military units or governments, are forbidden.” (The Harvest of Justice is Sown in Peace)
The “Catechism of the Catholic Church” addresses the issues of peace and war in articles 2302-2317. Specifically in article 2309, the Catechism outlines “the strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force… At one and the same time:
Probability of Success: arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success;
Proportionality: the overall destruction expected from the use of force must be outweighed by the good to be achieved;
Last Resort: force may be used only after all peaceful alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted.
These criteria (jus ad bellum), taken as a whole, must be satisfied in order to override the strong presumption against the use of force. Second, the just war tradition seeks also to curb the violence of war through restraint on armed combat between the contending parties by imposing the following moral standards (jus in bello) for the conduct of armed conflict:
Noncombatant Immunity: civilians may not be the object of direct attack, and military personnel must take due care to avoid and minimize indirect harm to civilians; (The Harvest of Justice is Sown in Peace - Natl Conference of Catholic Bishops
These criteria (jus ad bellum), taken as a whole, must be satisfied in order to override the strong presumption against the use of force. Second, the just war tradition seeks also to curb the violence of war through restraint on armed combat between the contending parties by imposing the following moral standards (jus in bello) for the conduct of armed conflict.
Dear Senator Feinstein:
In recent weeks, several prominent Republicans, among them Brent Scowcroft, your colleague Dick Armey, Lawrence Eagleburger, and James Baker have boldly and decisively spoken out against Bush plans to invade Iraq. Over that same period, prominent Democrats have remained embarrasingly silent. As a Democrat and constituent I am ashamed, and I am angry.
Over the next days and weeks, you will be meeting the President and leading House deliberations. I urge you in the strongest terms to speak out; to put Bush his proof, and to examine justifications that have thus far amounted to nothing more than deceptiive pretexts for a gravely immoral adventurism.
The consequences for the US and the world should Bush's schemes remain unchecked are grave indeed. Perhaps you read Immanuel Wallerstein's OpEd in Los Angeles Times last April. His opening parapaph has, in the event, turn out to be eerily prophetic:
"George Bush is a geopolitical incompetent. He has allowed a clique of hawks to induce him to take a position on invading Iraq from which he cannot extract himself, one that will have nothing but negative consequences for the United States - and the rest of the world. He will find himself badly hurt politically, perhaps fatally. And he will rapidly diminish the already declining power of the US in the world."
No citizen, no representative can have anything to do with any unprovoked, preemptive invasion of a sovereign nation unless the following criteria met. In no case, has the Bush admistration advanced a justification for war that comes close to satisfying a single one.
The criteria are for just war are:
- the threatened damage must be lasting, grave, and certain;
- all other means must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
- the prospects of success must be significant;
- the use of arms must not produce evils graver than the evil to be eliminated, and
- the decision for war must be made by legitimate authority, in this case, both the United States Congress and the Security Council of the United Nations.
As the decision for war is yours, so too the responsibity for its consequences.
Thank you very much.
"Barely coherent" you say? "Wacko left theory" you say? "On Saddam's payroll" you say?
Turns out you don't SAY much of anything Zan.
1. missive: A written message; a letter
2. redundant: 1. Exceeding what is necessary or natural; superfluous. 2. Needlessly wordy or repetitive in expression: a student paper filled with redundant phrases
And my deepest apologies for the Moral Theologian to DiFi remark. I am so insensitive at times. That bit of self-deprecating sarcasm flew from the keyboard, right over JoeZ's head. Arms flailing, sputum spewing, Joe it was so humiliating.
So for abusive cruelty towards the mentally infirm...definitions for JoeZ..
Sarcasm:1. A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound. 2. A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule.
self-deprecating: Tending to undervalue oneself and one's abilities
Moron: 1. A stupid person; a dolt.
2. Psychology A person of mild mental retardation having a mental age of from 7 to 12 years and generally having communication and social skills enabling some degree of academic or vocational education.
And I promise you Joey...No more sarcasm....[Moron]
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Middle East envoy retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni urged caution on Sunday in dealing with Iraq, saying the potential impact of military action on Israel, relationships with key allies and the war on terrorism had to be carefully weighed.
"We've got enough wolves on the sled to shoot; let's not be popping some off in the woodline if we don't need to, unless we're absolutely sure it's necessary," Zinni added.
Zinni warned that a military strike could further complicate the stalled efforts to end Israeli-Palestinian violence and could distract attention and drain resources from the business of ensuring stability in Afghanistan ( news - web sites).
The United States should also weigh carefully the possible impact of its action on relationships with regional allies and on a struggle between conservatives and reformers in Iran.
"When you commit this nation to military action, do it right. Make sure we understand the effects not only here at home, but over there," Zinni said, adding that articulating a cogent case for intervention was also vital for the U.S. soldiers who would risk their lives in such a mission.
"There's a hell of a good reason why generals are cautious ... Politicians make mistakes, soldiers pay for those mistakes with their blood,"
And Scott Ritter should get the Medal of Freedom for discharging his patriotic duty with such vigor and courage.
Pigshit in search of a pretext, crackpot Zan, gas mask and musket at the ready, prepares to meet Jesus in the air (a profound Pauline passage that the Teletubby Killin Zan-Talibans made profane).
Zinni makes a prudential-geopolitical case against the War to Believe in Bush. I have spent some time on the Just War Theory lately, and will spend more. I intend to set the facts against the Just War doctrine requirements in detail.
It is also useful to examine the decision for war, and the decision whether and how to oppose it once hostilities have begun, through other models such as international law, international politics and economics, domestic issues, and military tactics/strategy.
What is striking how dismally the ChickenHawk case fares on careful examination under ANY of these paradigms. No matter the decisional frame, the choice for war or against is rarely clear. This is the exception that proves the rule.
If you doubt this, test the arguments yourselves and see. The next time you hear Bush or Cheney or read your favorite commentator or listen to a Sunday Talking Head Hour, sift through what is being said, measure against rigorous criteria of any stripe.
If you wonder at the public's overwhelming and growing doubts, if you cannot quite understand why it is that the vast majority here and abroad do not believe that Bush has offered sufficient justification, well the answer is really quite simple - this is pigshit in search of a pretext.
Hell The Baron of the Bunk-port wouldn't have screwed this up either...and last I heard, he was still a card-carrying Republican , though Billy Kristol, General Secty of the Conintern, is, I understand, trying remedy that little problem.
No TD, as one who supported GWI (against REAL lefties not the demons in Zan's feeble mind), the equities were balanced. Judging the debate back then as dispassionately as possible, as one might judge a Moot Court or forensic competition, neither side of the GWI debate enjoyed such a commanding and compelling advantage. Starkly stated, Rose presented a far stronger case against the Kosovo War than any ChickenHawk has articulated thus far and likely ever will.
Never in US history, other than I guess the Spanish American War, have war proponents advanced such an inconsisent, fear filled, emotionally overwrought, factually insupportable, logically infirm, morally damnable, more transparently pretextual arguments nor done so with such appalling political ineptitude.
Mind you, this is an analytical hypothesis, an exerise in comparative history, as "objective" as any history can be, yet nonetheless convincing and I think readily established. In Just War theory for instance, the measures are specific and the value premises are clear. The hypothesis: We never done seen shit like this befo - not who had the better argument.
briefly
- Deploy 50,000 or so troops, plus air, and an armored division less than 100,000 costs shared somehow.
- UN inspectors back by a time certain
- If refused or if Blix and Co determine substantial interference with mission then
- Coercive inspections....we take Basra, set up a base hold their oil hostage US/Brit/allies just take Blix's Boys wherever the fuck they want to go.
Trouble is Bush cannot walk and chew gum at the same time. He has only one thing in mind. There aren't alternative policy choices in play only con jobs that fool no one, not even Zan fer chrissakes! There aren't any policy choices because Bush in steady hemmoraghe has lost all control of his internal political processes. And its all a vicious circle for political impotence makes policy less potent which in turn..and so on.
Boy Americans sure were on to somethin when we didn't elect that numbskull.
The George W. Bush Administration is today embroiled in what may be the greatest scandal yet in its brief history -- successfully getting support from Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair for an imminent attack of Iraq on the basis of a blatantly phony reading of intelligence photographs and of an old report from U.N. atomic energy agency.
"I don't know what more evidence we need," Bush said, brandishing the photos in front of the British leader, and claiming that the 1998 U.N. report said that Saddam Hussein was six months away from building nuclear weapons.
Blair fell for it.
As for the photos, there was and is, contrary to news reports, no specific building that caused any concern, according to the U.N. agency that released the pictures. Although the photos -- taken by a commercial enterprise -- show new construction, there is NO evidence that it is related to new nuclear-related operations in Iraq.
In preparations for Bush's September 12 speech to the U.N., the Administration appears to have taken a leaf from the Cuban missile crisis forty years ago, when Ambassador Adlai Stevenson provided incontrovertible proof from intelligence photographs that the Soviets had placed nuclear weapons in Cuba.
But Stevenson's photos were authentic, undoctored, and clear proof.
The Bush photos have no clear proof of anything. The Bushies are just making it up!
In Washington, expert observers pointed out that the shill bears the fingerprints of Vice President Dick Cheney. Last month, Cheney delivered a hawkish speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, charging that only an attack on Iraq right now would rid the world of the Hussein menace. Now, say observers, Cheney and his supporters may be trying to find whatever evidence they can, and skew it if necessary, to back up his case.
"Look, Dick Cheney cooked the books when he was head of Halliburton," one expert, who declined to be identified for this article, said. "Now he's cooking the photos on Iraq. Looks like Cheney's work."
The scandal is all the more worrisome because it confuses the legitimate concerns about Hussein. There is no question that the Iraqi leader possesses some weapons of mass destruction, which he has deployed in the past. But trying to sway world opinion about Hussein with phony reports and trumped-up "evidence" only makes the search for the terrible truth about Hussein more difficult -- and only makes the world, as well as the American people, more wary than ever of the secretive, mendacity-prone Bush team.
Instead of George W. Bush's Cuban Missile Crisis, it's beginning to look like his Gulf of Tonkin -- a phony pretext for going to war right away. The precedent is disastrous.
In Washington, veteran observers have suggested that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee might now have no choice but to investigate this incident thoroughly -- to get to the bottom of how and why the Bush Administration used doctored reports and misleading photographic evidence to try and push its case.
Not since the Vietnam era has any White House created such a huge credibility gap as the George W. Bush Administration has. But whereas it took the country -- and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee --several years before they woke up to the official lying about Vietnam, the truth about the Bush Administration's lying has begun to be exposed before the first shot is fired.
Capitol Hill veterans tell MWO that Senator Joe Biden is, or at least ought to be, outraged at this shocker. Not only does it affect the current crisis over Iraq -- it badly compromises the credibility of the United States on all issues of global concern
"The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud," national security adviser Condoleezza Rice ( news - web sites) said Sunday on CNN's "Late Edition
The Problem CondoGirl
Is that for the first time in its history, a moron with a Napoleon complex is about to plunge this country into war because of another's bad thoughts...
a war to pre-empt an attack with weapons Sadaam doesn't have;
that he may never get;
that he cannot effectively deliver;
that even if he were to get the weapons and the delivery system, he could not use without assuring national incineration;
all in country that is patrolled by US/Brit warplanes; whose economy is near collapse, that can't afford to replace treads on its tanks;
to preempt a threat that those nation said to be most at risk do not support;
Led by a nest of chickenhawks who keep changing their bullshit.
The problem condogirl is that you are a good argument against affirmative action
Why when walk around campus these days to I get this funny feelin a song pops in my head "Look What's happnin on the street gotta revolution, got to revolution?" (at least when brain not otherwise occupied with purty boys)
Is it my second childhood, some midlife menopausal mess?
One of them acid flashbacks They used to warn us about b4 we "liberated" Them?
PARIS The United States has talked itself into a war with Iraq
SALMAN PAK, Iraq (Reuters) - Iraq allowed Western reporters on Monday to accompany former U.N. arms inspector Scott Ritter to a facility allegedly used for training "terrorists
"This is the place that is going to cause a war. This is the site that the Bush administration is citing as a proof that the Iraqi government has a connection with (Osama bin Laden ( news -web sites)'s) al Qaeda," Ritter said.
"There are those who are affiliated with the Bush administration who continue to perpetrate a lie. You don't go to war based on a lie," Scott Ritter
Fairly says it all wouldn't you agree Joe-Bob-Boy
Al Gore, 1998
Bill Clinton, explaining Operation Desert Fox (which happened to occur on the eve of the impeachment vote, December 16, 1998)
Now it's five years since that and we haven't had any inspections at all.
Any chance Saddam might be back in business?
The International Center for Strategic Studies thinks so.
Now we're going to launch an unprovoked aggressive war not because of a threat but because of a desire?
So the question is next pretext?
Lets put some lipstick on this pig
LONDON, Sept. 9 — Saddam Hussein has substantial stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and the capacity to expand production of them on short notice, but Iraq will be unable to build a nuclear weapon for years unless it obtains radioactive material on the black market, a leading security affairs research organization said today.
The group, the International Institute for Strategic Studies, which is based in London, said that while there remained many doubts about the quantities and capabilities of Mr. Hussein's war matériel, there was no question that his government's priority was developing weapons of mass destruction.
"War, sanctions and inspections have reversed and retarded but not eliminated Iraq's nuclear, biological and chemical weapons and long-range missile capacity, nor removed Baghdad's enduring interest in developing these capabilities," John Chipman, the institute director, said at a news conference.
NyT
ISS
Disregard for the moment the accuracy of the President's implication that Josef Stalin was less bloodthirsty than today's crop of tyrants, or that his possession of a nuclear arsenal was somehow more benign in comparison. We may even pass over, with no more than an embarrassed cough, the notion that hundreds of nuclear weapons, the largest land army in the world, and the industrial base of half Eurasia in the possession of a man who murdered 20 million of his countrymen was somehow less a threat to U.S. national existence than fugitives in caves and safe houses, an Iraqi mafioso whose own national airspace is closely patrolled by U.S. military aircraft, or a lunatic on the northern half of the Korean peninsula whose citizens vary their starvation diet of grass and tree bark with U.S. food aid.
Wrong question.
Right questions
1. What is the problem?
2. Does it justify pre-emptive war
3. Should Clinton have followed up the bombing with, as I suggested then, what is now being called the "coercive inspection option"
4. Could he have done so in 1999 while the Reapers were busy impeaching him and Slobo was busy with mass murder in Kosovo?
5. Could he have done so to strains of wag the dog in 2000?
6. And back full circle, so what?
Cut the crap...
Sadaam is less of a threat today than he was in 1991 and MORE of a threat, thanks to Bush bungling today than he was a year ago.
And in any event less a threat to peace than the 1/2 wit in chief.
You disagree that the report indicates a belief that Saddam is back in business?
I refer you to
In conclusion, war, sanctions and inspections have reversed and retarded, but not eliminated Iraq’s nuclear, biological and chemical weapons and long range missile capacities, nor have they removed Baghdad’s enduring interest in developing these capacities. The retention of WMD capacities by Iraq is self-evidently the core objective of the regime, for it has sacrificed all other domestic and foreign policy goals to this singular aim....A reasonable net assessment is that Iraq has no nuclear weapons but could build one quickly if it acquired sufficient fissile material. It has extensive biological weapons capabilities and a smaller chemical weapons stockpile....Sooner or later, it seems likely that the current Iraqi regime will eventually achieve its objectives.
Just what do you think the report says?
But just one little mushroom cloud over Herzliya and that guy is toast. Just one, you hear me?
An aggressive, militaristic, antidemocratic regime bent on acquiring weapons of mass destruction.
2. Does it justify pre-emptive war
Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Madeline Albright, Sandy Berger, and many Democratic senators thought so in late 1998.
3. Should Clinton have followed up the bombing with, as I suggested then, what is now being called the "coercive inspection option"
Whatever Bubba should have, would have, or could have done are all certainly the "wrong question" now.
4. Could he have done so in 1999 while the Reapers were busy impeaching him and Slobo was busy with mass murder in Kosovo?
Again, the failure of Clinton to pursue this or that policy in 1999 is irrelevant to helping us make a decision today. In actuality, however, Saddam Hussein has killed more people and represents a greater threat to American interests than Milosevic ever did. If impeachment made it impossible for Clinton to do his job protecting the national security of the United States, he should have resigned. In contrast, he insisted it was not affecting his ability to do his job, and he in fact carried out several military operations with the timing suspect because of how they appeared to be attempts to distract from impeachment.
5. Could he have done so to strains of wag the dog in 2000?
Eh...what happened in 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997? (Oh yeah, Bill was busy getting his rocks off.) In any case, you're crawfishing away from the "wrong question" because you don't want to answer it. You're explaining why Bubba didn't finish the job in 1998, rather than why he thought it was imperative to take (practically) unilateral action in 1998 when inspectors were in the country, but five years later without inspections we should just sit tight.
We want to see Israelis and Americans incinerated first, and the living envy the dead, before we even think of removing Saddam.
International norms require this.
Not to mention the New York Times.
This statement takes my breath away! Competence requires resignation for fear of "suspect timing."
Face it, if Clinton had a cure for AIDS you would have said "he's just doing it to draw attention away from Whitewater!"
You people are FUCKING PATHETIC!
No. You were capable of copying and pasting the quotation. Demonstrate that you're also capable of reading and responding to what it actually said, rather than an imaginary statement against which you'd prefer to argue.
Being unable to do one's job is by definition incompetence.
If Clinton had a cure for AIDS you would have said "he's just doing it to draw attention away from Whitewater!"
Again, no. I have and have never had any real interest in Whitewater--at least not as much interest as you have in the driving record of the "FIRST LADY" when she was a 17 year old.
My preference in the context of this topic especially is to discuss Iraq, not Whitewater or Monica or Clinton's dick or whether he's gay or whatever else you wish to drag out of the closet.
To that end, I repeat: "Why did leading Democrats think it was imperative to take (practically) unilateral action in 1998 when inspectors were in the country, but five years later without inspections we should just sit tight?"
2. redundant: 1. Exceeding what is necessary or natural; superfluous.
2. Needlessly wordy or repetitive in expression: a student paper filled with redundant phrases.
Email missive, bonehead, is not only perfectly proper English -in this and most cases for the purpose of distinguishing said missive from the traditional hard-copy - it is also quite a common phrase. Google it - 22,000 entries.
And as for your just war preaching...listen - I'll gladly admit to being a rabid hawk on Iraq, Syria, Iran, Saudi, and any number of other sovereign countries that mean us no good but simply haven't figured out yet how to screw us good. I admit it: I want them blasted just on GPs. But I have a long, long way to go before I even approach the level of damn-the-just-war bloodthirst you displayed during Clinton's Balkan adventures, or the maniacal glee you ejaculated all over this fine forum at every "Slerb" death, be it intentional or collateral.
Just War, my ass.
So bite me, jasper.
By the way - how about that Condo, huh?: "The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."
LIAR!
Ah yes, cold-blooded murder as a "youthful indiscretion."
Downing Street suggested that Mr Blair's case had been strengthened by the publication of a detailed report by the International Institute for Strategic Studies, a leading think-tank in London.
The institute said that Iraq had almost certainly stepped up its weapons programme since expelling UN inspectors four years ago.
It confirmed that Iraq could be only months from building a nuclear bomb if it could smuggle in weapons-grade material. Alternatively, it could take several years to make its own such material.
If Saddam is militarily deposed in the near future, it appears that Jexster's wish for an Iraqi caused nuclear incident will be stymied.
Jexster may have gloated over Serb deaths, but he did not gloat over them in a right-wing fascistic-nationalistic Neanderthal fashion, but rather in an intellectual way. The spittle was dripping to the left and it was refined.
In any case, Chirac is all gesticulation and no substance. What he says is of little practical consequence.
The first is a detailed description of the origin and evolution over two years of the 9/11 plot and its principal participants and their links to Osama bin Laden. Several of the planners and directors of the operation are still on the loose and presumably capable of mounting more attacks.
The second article assesses the current location and strength of Al Qaida. It reports that after fleeing Afghanistan Al Qaida remains scattered throughout south Asia and the Middle East, "creating a terrorist diaspora of deep concern to American counterterrorist officials. After trying to set up a base in Pakistan Al Qaida operatives are returning to Afghanistan and may have been responsible for the recent assassination attempt on Karzai and the car bombing in Kabul last Thursday. The returning Al Qaida thus pose a serious threat to the Karzai government. On the positive side, financial support for al Qaida has diminished post-9/11. Some backers have said they didn't sign up for anything like 9-11, according to U.S. intelligence sources.
My conclusions from reading the articles are (1) Yes, there continues to be a serious terrorism threat against the U.S., domestically and around the world; (2)The principal threat is from the remains of the Osama bin Laden organization, not from Iraq; (3) Stabilizing Afghanistan and rooting out the remaining and returning al Qaida there remains a formidable task; (4) Despite the Bush-Cheney PR campaign there is little evidence linking Iraq to link 9-11; and (4) It therefore makes little sense to distract our focus from the principal threat (Al Qaida) by attacking Iraq before the task we began in Afghanistan after 9-11 is completed and while the Israeli-Palestine hostilities continue.
Whatever your take on Iraq, the articles provide a wealth of fascinating detail on 9-11 and Al Qaida.
Not really. Chancelor Shroeder's opposition to a preemptive attack against Iraq is is not likely to change even if the French "methodology" (a UN imprimatur) is adopted.
The French position is rather transparent. France remains a military as well as a diplomatic midget... unless it gets the Security Council involved, where par hasard it still enjoys a veto quite incommensurable to its weight in the real world. For 21st century France, the UN Security Council is about all it's left to her to play grosspolitik.
Maybe the Shroeder government position would be closer to the French "methodology" if Germany also had veto privilege on the Security Council...
That said, I don't think that the non involvement of the UN constitutes the main objection around the World to a preemptive attack. Rather, it's skepticisism regarding the seriousness of the threat posed by Hussein.
Furthermore, this time around, a Security Council imprimatur will not allow to build up a "coalition" like last time. France, Canada, Germany etc have already said they won't supply any troops or money. Therefore, the US, the terrorist target par excellence, will be on its own with or without a UN backing. Since it will be doing all the fighting and dying the US may as well avoid the UN quagmire.
U.S. forces have been quietly filtering into Iraq for more than three months. To date, American and Turkish special forces have gained control of 15% of Iraqi soil - mostly in the north where they are poised at a point 20 kilometers from Iraq's two most northern oil cities of Mosul and Kirkuk together with pro-American Kurdish and Turkman paramilitary groups.
(...)
Since August 5, the way for an American advance into Iraq is also clear from the south. Therefore, the general contours of the next US-UK move take shape.
A combined U.S.-Turkish force, backed by local tribal groups, will complete the capture of northern Iraq and its oil cities.
The combined U.S.-Jordanian force will advance on Baghdad and Tikrit.
The heavy military and armoured units massed on the Kuwait-Iraq frontier will advance north in two heads - one forking off to the east and heading for Basra, while the other makes for Shiite towns of Najef and Karbala on the Baghdad highway.
If the former, then enter the Great Gray Lady of DC Thinque Tanques...
Two recent articles merit attention. CAVEAT-The views expressed are those of the Brookings Institution, and not necessarily those of Cmndr. BabaJex who happens to think they are full of shit in some important respects but one hell of an improvement over the regnant lunatics in the Bush BumbleFuck Administration.
Getting Serious About Iraq "Survival", Autumn 2002
Philip H. Gordon, Senior Fellow and Director, Center on the United States and France
Michael E. O'Hanlon, Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy Studies
Martin S. Indyk, Senior Fellow and Director, Saban Center for Middle East Policy
The Iraq Ulitmatum Slate, September 9, 2002
Is it Time or is it Jex, JoeZ? 
Quoting CondoRice's Mushroom Cloud crap..
Or maybe he's not so dumb...maybe he is laughing the most of the rest of the world.
If Bibi, BillyK and Arik Can Do It,
Why Not PantyWaist and Portugal????
Crash and burn
WASHINGTON (AP) - Portugal's prime minister cautioned President Bush ( news - web sites) Tuesday against acting alone on Iraq, as the White House press secretary said the United States would help bring "stability and peace" if Saddam Hussein ( news - web sites) were toppled.
AP Photo
Reuters Photo
Slideshow: Iraq and Saddam Hussein
Cheney: Risk of Inaction Too Great
(AP Video)
Blair And Bush Have 'Shared Determination'
(Reuters)
9/11
Special Coverage
News, features,
photos and more.
Go there now.
Sitting down with Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barosso, Bush warned of "the dire possibilities that outlaw regimes will develop weapons of mass destruction and (link) with terrorist organizations, or use them on their own against countries that love freedom, countries such as Portugal."
Iraq Calls on Arabs to Confront U.S.
Tue Sep 10,11:40 AM ET
By SELCAN HACAOGLU, Associated Press Writer
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - In Iraq's most belligerent remarks in the current standoff with Washington, Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan urged all Arabs on Tuesday to confront the United States, its people and its property by any means.
The comments stopped short of explicitly calling on Arabs to attack Americans but underlined Iraq's drive to sway world — and particularly Middle Eastern — opinion behind it against U.S. threats of a possible strike to oust Saddam Hussein ( news - web sites).
His comments came as Saudi Arabia joined European countries on Tuesday in saying Washington should work through the United Nations ( news - web sites) to contain any possible Iraqi threat.
It's not Schrِder and I on one side, and Bush and Blair on the other; it's Bush and Blair on one side and all the others on the other side Jacques Chirac
The results of my research into the strange netherworld of the chickenfried crackpot
Tampons: Satan's Filthy Little Secret
- Is this but the latest in a long string of manufactured armadillo shit?
if not then remember the Gospel According to Gen Zinni -> The Moron still must deal with ALQ and stop manufacturing crap about threats from Iraq
Although there aren't (I don't think) any crawfish in England, I think Blair could get his point across by calling Saddam Hussein a "googly-bowling chucker."
'Don't worry. We've got a plan. We purposefully let the Iraq issue stay in no-man's-land for a while. But we know what we're doing.' That's what senior people at the White House tell me," the Reverend Lou Sheldon, the chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition, informs me while we're waiting for sandwiches. (It pays to favor the Capitol Hill deli fancied by a leader of the religious right.) "I sure hope so," he adds.
Boy Blunder at the UN: The Charade b4 the Crusade
EMINENT Americans visiting Europe recently often seem to find themselves in a state of bewilderment, almost as if they had stumbled into some sort of parallel universe. “We in America think of September 11th as an event that changed the world,” says Bill Kristol, editor of the neo-conservative Weekly Standard, “but the Europeans seem to regard it as an event that changed America.” Robert Kagan, author of a much-applauded article on the gulf between Europe and America, comments that “American policymakers find it hard to believe, but leading officials in Europe worry more about how the US might mishandle the problem of Iraq—by undertaking unilateral or extra-legal military action—than they worry about Iraq itself.”
The Economist concludes that these observations are "broadly accurate", an assessment I would agree with.
But European opinion can be swayed, I think, if the US, the UK and France introduces a toughly worded ultimatum in the Security Council (Chirac seemed to open up for that possibility the other day). It will not matter very much if it is ultimately vetoed by Russia. Europeans know that Russia plays its own murky games in the region.
Next Pretext Please
The resolve of President Bush to use force against Iraq, they say, compounds the antagonism, which is expressed with particularly unvarnished dismay in Egypt and neighboring Jordan, Washington's crucial Arab allies.
More than in previous bouts of anti-Americanism in the region, the anger permeates all strata of society, especially among the educated, and is tinged, people acknowledge, with disillusionment at their own long-entrenched American-backed leadership
Find that Pretext, Send in the Boy Blunder 
There must be some kind of pill you can take when you start feeling European - isn't there?
Yes, a strong laxative. If that doesn't work try an enema.
But Sadam Hussein, who had NO ICBMs, has a relatively small number of IRBMs with a reach no father than the middle east, and who has never delivered a nuclear or chemical weapon with one, we can't contain? We have aircraft flying armed reconaisance over two thirds of his country's airspace, a embargo against military imports [which is less effective than we would like, I would grant you] in the no fly zones there are opposition groups in the wings waiting to slit Hussein's throat given the chance, and this guy we can't contain?
Hussein must go, but many of the reasons to get rid of him, would be reasons to get rid of some of our allies. Hussein is a ruthless dictator who abuses women, and minorities. He has no respect for human rights, or of the rights of neigbboring countries. He has invaded his neighbors more than once, starting wider wars. But then again, we can say the same thing about Syria, and Egypt.
. One side maintains that war is necessary because it is the only way to prevent Saddam Hussein from obtaining nuclear and biological "weapons of mass destruction" and then using them, either directly or, more likely, by supplying them to undeterrable terrorists. And it argues that the toppling of the Iraqi regime would precipitate a cascade of democratization throughout the Arab and Muslim world, beginning with Iran and Syria but eventually encompassing Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and a future Palestinian state as well. The other side argues that war, no matter how victorious in the first instance, could end by making the region and the world more dangerous than before. It would risk the collapse of the delicate but ongoing global system of anti-terror police work and information sharing; the overthrow of acceptable regimes in an arc stretching from Jordan to Pakistan, which already possesses a nuclear arsenal; the widening of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; the enthronement of preëmption as a prerogative of power, not only in the Middle East but also in places like the Hindu Kush and the straits of Taiwan; and a long and expensive occupation of Iraq that diverts vast quantities of American resources, military and otherwise, into a nation-building enterprise that might succeed mainly in provoking, and providing targets for, new terrorism.
letter missive is redundant Joey...
Those who write on shit house walls
Roll their shit in little balls
those who read these lines of wit
eat those little balls of shit.
from a bathroom wall graffitti missive
God TD day late, dollar short ... again?!?!?!
That's been Chirac's position for at least 6 months or more.
Why don't you read what he said instead of what a hawk brit newspaper said he said?
EXCERPTS
Interview With Jacques Chirac - New York Times
MONDAY(!) 09.09.02
A It's not Schrِder and I on one side, and Bush and Blair on the other; it's Bush and Blair on one side and all the others on the other side. Which is slightly different. And as far as I know the European Union clearly stated that it was against any unilateral action. . . . Jacques Chirac
And refer also to our corn pone crackpot cum moderator's post missive and to the same effect Bush At the UN: Charade Before the Crusade
Get it?
Got it?
Good!
Now get this...
Senior Bush administration officials have given Iraq's pursuit of nuclear weapons as the main argument that the United States must act now to oust President Hussein, before the Iraqi leader acquires nuclear arms and alters the strategic balance in the Persian Gulf.
But the administration has not yet prepared what is called a national intelligence estimate, the intelligence community's most definitive written judgment on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. The document contains the coordinated intelligence assessments from the Pentagon, State Department, Central Intelligence Agency and other government entities and any significant dissenting views
Be happy to send you an email missive
"I know of no information that the threat is so imminent from Iraq" that Congress cannot wait until January to vote on a resolution, said Minority Whip Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the House intelligence committee. "I did not hear anything today that was different about [Hussein's] capabilities," save a few "embellishments."
You hidin somethin from U.S. TD, or is this all just pigshit in search of pretext, peut etre?
I realize the pressing national interest of killing tens of thousands of Iraqis and maybe a thousand or so young US servicemen in the War to Make Bush Believable, but this nuke talk is causing Ronski to break out in hives.
what a sad & sick bunch
Which of course is why Bush wants to steamroller this War for Believability through the congress b4 the election...cause afterwards, when the defense assessment is finished, it will be clear that this is all a charade...
Or does anyone think that postponing the crusades a month would jeopardize anything?
L'Irak appelle à frapper ses "agresseurs"
Tandis que Washington intensifie ses manœuvres diplomatiques, le président Saddam Hussein poursuit sa politique du tout ou rien. Estimant avoir été dépouillé des armes de destruction massive, il considère que l'ONU doit lever ses sanctions vis-à-vis de l'Irak.
Mireille Mathieu, La Dame d'Avignon, chante La Marseillaise, TomasD'asshole [MP3]
Before a shot had been fired, Colin Powell lost his battle
Que veut cette horde d'esclaves
De traîtres, de rois conjurés?
Pour qui ces ignobles entraves
Ces fers dès longtemps préparés?
Français, pour nous, ah! quel outrage
Quels transports il doit exciter?
Liberte, liberte cherie...Combats avec tes défenseurs!
The view from down under...
Bush Imperils World Peace & Democracy 
A War Record Littered with Lies
It is difficult to know whether this was partly wishful thinking or unadulterated spin
I dunno the Brit official but I know TDaschole....
George Bush is a geopolitical incompetent. He has allowed a clique of hawks to induce him to take a position on invading Iraq from which he cannot extract himself, one that will have nothing but negative consequences for the United States - and the rest of the world. He will find himself badly hurt politically, perhaps fatally. And he will rapidly diminish the already declining power of the US in the world.
"Don't worry. We've got a plan. We purposefully let the Iraq issue stay in no-man's-land for a while. But we know what we're doing, That's what senior people at the White House tell me....I sure hope so," the Reverend Lou Sheldon, the chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition
"One year later, and people still think we were attacked because Osama was jealous of our cellphones. To me, this is like the dickhead popular kid in high school who thought everybody hated him because he's sexy and has a nice car. No Bif, we hate you because you beat us up and stole our lunch money in Junior High."
(Kyria Abrahams)
They love our technology, and have used it extensively. They have the weird idea that they can marry modern technology with benighted, dark-ages theocracy.
And no Americans beat up any Arabs and stole their lunch money, that I know of.
I think it is probably hopeless.
Jexster's mental problem, some sort of uncontrolled or inadequately medicated mania, will probably destroy this site. Who the hell wishes to wade through all these gobs of crap he throws up?
A shame.
Here's a novel idea, jex: You post an idea or two, then wait for someone to reply. I know what you're thinking - No one ever replies to my Mote missives - they just make fun of me. So I make up for quality with quantity.
But that's just stinkin' thinkin', jex.
I'm sure everyone will agree, if instead of posting barely coherent faux headline after faux headline, complete with links and html screw-ups, if you took the time - the two fucking hours, for instance, that it took you to post the mess above - if you just used that time to condense all this junk down to one or two focused posts, not only would you find that more people would seriously debate you, but you'd probably gain a lot more respect for yourself.
Let's give it a try, ok?
Jexster's kinda guy. Where's that photo where Saddam was grabbing some scared shitless kid's head during the gulf war?
There must be some kind of pill you can take when you start feeling European - isn't there?
A couple generations down the road, it'll be 'feeling Islamic' in Sweden.
sakonige -
You'd be doing jexster a favor if you posted to him regularly.
It looks to me as if Western European leaders have understood that it is impossible to hold Bush back, and that they will push for a UN mandate in order to try to contain the damage as far as possible.
Germany is the sticking point : Schrِder is clearly not going along for the ride. He's up for re-election in ten days. He was generally considered to be heading for defeat, but that may be turning around -- talk of war may well help him, as German opinion is strongly against an intervention in Iraq, even with a UN mandate.
Message from William Parcher: "Thanks to your work we have isolated the bomb to the East Coast"
Scott Ritter on "Today"
207. jexster - 9/12/2002 10:03:00 AM
Annan to Bush - Keep Your Steer Shit in Texus - No Unilateral Action Agains Iraq
208. jexster - 9/12/2002 10:09:50 AM
Boy Blunder's Adventurism Sets Off 3-way Struggle for Northern Iraqi Oil
209. jexster - 9/12/2002 10:24:01 AM
Ritter kicks butt!
Q: "I recently interviewed Iraqi ambassador....who said there were no scud missiles, no chem/bio etc, are you saying you believe him"
Ritter: "Hell no. I don't believe what any Eye-raqi tells me"
210. jexster - 9/12/2002 10:26:45 AM
Preacher Man Bush last night..."the light shines in darkness"
Lection Sancti Evangeli secundum Moron
211. jexster - 9/12/2002 10:29:54 AM
Lectio...
Lectio Sancti Evangeli secundum Joannes ..The Last Gospel
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was in the beginning with God. 3All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being 4in him was life, and the life was the light of all people.
5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it. 6There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7He came as a witness to testify to the light, so that all might believe through him. 8He himself was not the light, but he came to testify to the light. 9The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world. 10He was in the world, and the world came into being through him; yet the world did not know him. 11He came to what was his own, and his own people did not accept him. 12But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God, 13who were born, not of blood or of the will of the flesh or of the will of man, but of God. 14And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth.
212. jexster - 9/12/2002 10:32:33 AM
We shall see AC...my bet is that Chirac is "drawing the line in the sand" not for Saddam but for Blair
213. jexster - 9/12/2002 10:35:52 AM
Jexster's mental problem, some sort of uncontrolled or inadequately medicated mania, will probably destroy this site. Who the hell wishes to wade through all these gobs of crap he throws up?
We have narrowed the location of the bomb to the east coast, thanks to your work Ronski....
I've gotten used to ignoring them and I think, as a result, they've kind of given up on me. I think that's what it's like with all our dreams and our nightmares, Ronski, we've got to keep feeding them for them to stay alive
214. jexster - 9/12/2002 10:42:52 AM
AC - Further to the line in the sand point, Chirac, was asked about Cheney's unilateralist war mongering, and his answer "I don't care about M. Cheney...."
The point being, the point I have been making since spring 2000, the pwahnt made in Time magazine last week, and the point made in the concrete in the DailyT piece linked above is that "the Powell-blair line" is dead and that to think otherwise is wishful thinking...I think Jacques Chirac is far and away one of the shrewdest statesmen around, I think Jacques Chirac wasn't speaking to Bush, but to Blair.
215. joezan - 9/12/2002 11:00:13 AM
Have fun, jex.
In a few hours I am going to delete it all.
216. jexster - 9/12/2002 11:20:11 AM
You can do what you fuckin want you corn pone crackpot....
Like I rat's turd about what you do, what you think
217. jexster - 9/12/2002 11:23:10 AM
Shape of things to come...
SANTA MONICA, Calif. — Despite the ouster of the Taliban from power last November, the hard struggle to bring stability to Afghanistan continues, as shown by the car bombing in Kabul last week that killed 30 people and the assassination attempt against President Hamid Karzai in Kandahar the same day.
In recent weeks, the Bush administration has publicly warned that reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan are lagging because not enough money is being delivered for that effort. The administration has called on European nations to provide more funds to help Afghanistan recover from war.
At the same time, aid organizations and European officials have indicated that reconstruction is lagging because there's not enough security, and they have urged the United States to do more to provide it. The attacks in Kabul and Kandahar are evidence that Afghan reconstruction is faltering for lack of both security and money.
One Good Fuck Up Deserves A Bigger One: Afghanistan's Faltering Reconstruction
218. jexster - 9/12/2002 11:36:38 AM
Scott Ritter on CNN "Newsline" tonight 10pm eastern
219. jexster - 9/12/2002 11:59:22 AM
Yo Zan...here's a prime candidate for deletion..you crypto fascist fundie fuck...
Associated Press -
Entreaties from around the world to allow weapons inspectors to return clash with Iraq's concerns about how much scrutiny it should have to bear and when it will be released from crippling U.N. sanctions, Iraqi officials made clear in a series of interviews and statements this week.
Kemal Muhammad, director of the National Monitoring Commission that dealt with U.N. inspectors during the seven years they worked in Iraq before withdrawing in 1998, said Tuesday Iraq has fulfilled its responsibilities and wants to see action from the U.N. Security Council.
"We want to discuss the whole monitoring process, we want to talk about when the sanctions will be lifted," Muhammad said.
In Jordan Tuesday, Iraqi Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan told reporters: "People are too preoccupied condemning the (looming) aggression and they have forgotten the issue of lifting the sanctions."
At the United Nations on Tuesday, chief weapons inspector Hans Blix said there is no evidence from aerial photos or other sources that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction or is trying to build them.
But Blix urged Iraq to allow U.N. inspectors to return to address questions that remain open and reiterated that if Baghdad cooperates fully with inspections he could recommend that the Security Council suspend sanctions within a year.
Blix said he was ready to negotiate on practical arrangements for resuming inspections to avoid conflicts that arose in the past.
220. Edmund Dantes - 9/12/2002 12:03:05 PM
Ummm...why exactly are the words of the Iraqi propagandists in bold? Is it some sort of startling announcement that they a) don't want to be inspected and b) want sanctions lifted?
221. jexster - 9/12/2002 12:21:37 PM
Only Tony Blair, Ariel Sharon and Kuwait's Sheikh Saad al-Abdulla al-Sab are supporting Bush in his war on Iraq. England is too far away to offer air bases, and the British public is overwhelmingly against the war. Sharon is now offering bases, but is so hated by the Arab world his involvement will fuel help to Iraq. Kuwait is offering its bases, but anti-Americanism is so rampant right now that there are regular protests in the streets. Worse yet, a new study shows that nearly 75% of the people - in the same country Bush Sr. "freed" from Saddam Hussein - view Osama Bin Laden as a "hero."
Delete Me
222. PelleNilsson - 9/12/2002 12:23:05 PM
I read the transcript in order to check a claim by a commentator on Swedish Radio that Bush has dropped the demand for a change of regime in Iraq. Yes, he has.
223. jexster - 9/12/2002 12:28:43 PM
He didn't mention it Pelle. That's not the same as "dropping it" which would be "crawfishing". On this side of the pond, we hear ulitmatum in the comments that Saddam has forfeited its right to exist...UN doesn't do what I say, I will act etc....its a charade b4 the crusade...
Poor Hans Blix
224. jexster - 9/12/2002 12:29:24 PM
From: Robert Wright
Subject: The Mindless Altruism of Unilateralism [delete me]
225. jexster - 9/12/2002 12:37:00 PM
During the 2000 presidential campaign, George W. Bush said something[delete me] that, post-9/11, sounds prescient. He said the world's most powerful nation ran the risk of being seen as arrogant; he pledged that under his leadership America would become "a humble nation." Yet since he took office, America's reputation for arrogance—painstakingly built up over decades by countless American politicians, tourists, and crybaby tennis stars—has only grown. "Today," Michael Hirsh wrote recently in Foreign Affairs, "Washington's main message to the world seems to be, Take dictation."
226. PelleNilsson - 9/12/2002 12:44:14 PM
"UN doesn't do what I say ... etc" means in this context "if China and Russia don't do what I say".
Also check out marj's Message # 331 in thread 143 in the I&P thread for an interesting observation (and my comment in the following post).
227. jexster - 9/12/2002 12:57:29 PM
Last April, Colin Powell dragged the Boy Blunder into the Rose Garden where Our Leader demanded the immediate withdrawal of Israeli Troops from the West Bank....
If you want to know what Bush's REAL position is Pelle, don't listen to the Swedish chattering class, Tony Blair, Jacques Chirac, Gerhard Schroeder - don't read Thomas Friedman, listen to the Rev. Lou Shelton, the Traditional Values Coalition, Ariel Sharon & drop all for
Who's Next?
The Saddam skeptics should tell us: Which American city are they willing to bet that they're right?
by Richard Lessner
09/11/2002 12:00:00
The Weakly Standard pulls the strings...
Answer to the question: Crawford, Texus
228. jexster - 9/12/2002 1:04:13 PM
But let's face it: As much as many Bush advisers would like to skip an inspections ultimatum and just cut to the regime change, invading Iraq won't in any event be politically doable if Saddam Hussein unconditionally readmits U.N. inspectors. So, Bush might as well, all along, have cast his war plans as being on behalf of the U.N.-mandated weapons inspections, and thus on behalf of international law. Instead, by insisting on regime change regardless of the regime's future behavior, and casting the war as part of a new doctrine of pre-emptive invasion, Bush has cast America as an international outlaw.
This sort of public-relations blunder is not what you'd expect from a man who promised to give America a worldwide reputation for humility. It's what you'd expect from someone who hasn't truly grasped how the growing importance of world opinion has recast the logic of international cooperation
Its what you'd expect of a moron and a moron's cornucopia of corn pone crackpots....
Delete me.
229. Edmund Dantes - 9/12/2002 1:06:42 PM
Re the Kuwait poll:
The oil-rich state has a foreign population of some 1.4 million people and 870,300 Kuwaitis. The poll did not say how many respondents were Kuwaitis.
Nor, of course, do we know anything at all about the polling methods.
You can have "an opinion poll published in Kuwait's al-Rai al-Aam daily"; I'll take the support of the Kuwaiti government and the use of American military bases there.
230. jexster - 9/12/2002 1:13:27 PM
THOUSANDS of Germans clapped and chanted their approval in the northern port of Lübeck as Gerhard Schrِder took his campaign against the Iraq war to the people
Schrِder's anti-war stance puts him ahead of the pack [delete me]
This after reportedly trailing his CD opponent for months and screwing up badly in Deutschland's first ever TV debate.
231. jexster - 9/12/2002 1:14:35 PM
Guess Germans don't read the Weakly Standard or even know who Lovely Lou Shelton is
232. PelleNilsson - 9/12/2002 1:27:59 PM
jexster
In your eagerness to vilify Bush you have lost whatever capacity you once had for political analysis, just as you did in your eagerness to glorify Clinton during the Kosovo war.
I don't need you to tell me what to make of international political events including speeches by the US President. Please don't address me again until you have my express permission to do so.
233. jexster - 9/12/2002 1:39:45 PM
Daschle Still Has Questions on Bush's Iraq Plans
Thu Sep 12,12:52 PM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Senate Majority leader Tom Daschle on Thursday commended President Bush ( news - web sites) for making "a very strong presentation" to the United Nations ( news - web sites), but said a number of questions still must be answered before the U.S. Congress voted to back military action against Iraq.
9/11
Special Coverage
News, features,
photos and more.
Go there now.
The South Dakota Democrat said he was encouraged Bush was reaching out to the international community as he argued that Iraq was an outlaw nation that threatens the world.
"I think the president made a very strong presentation today," Daschle said.
He said he expected Congress before it adjourns will vote on a resolution backing use of force against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein ( news - web sites), but added that it was premature to set a timetable. Many lawmakers first want to see the reaction of the international community before authorizing use of U.S. military force, he said.
"I don't think anyone is committed to a course of action legislatively or militarily at this point," Daschle said.
Daschle said Congress needs to know how much backing Bush gets from the international community, the risks and costs of a military strike, how that action would affect the overall war on terrorism, and what plans there are for replacing Saddam.
234. jexster - 9/12/2002 1:40:16 PM
Pelle -
Don't go away mad.
235. jexster - 9/12/2002 1:43:29 PM
I was right about Kosovo...politically militarily morally
I am right about Bush...politically, militarily, morally.
So pay attention Pelle and you might learn something for a change
236. jexster - 9/12/2002 1:44:54 PM
Sorry for addressing you again...again
237. jexster - 9/12/2002 1:57:04 PM
And one of the things I am correct about Pelle and one of the many things you need to learn about international political relations concerns the implications of the willy-nilly Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive murder which I also have discussed at length and which is just cause for villification because it is not only immoral but downright dangerous. Its not Sweden that Bush imperils most...its my country....
"There is a possibility that India could take a lead from this theory of pre-emption"- Pervez Bushsharraf Pakistan Wants No Part in an Attack on Iraq
Is Pre-emption a Nuclear Schlieffen Plan?
238. jexster - 9/12/2002 2:03:02 PM
"What kind of friendship is it that does not permit disagreement over the existential question of war and peace?It cannot be that a friend demands something and we immediately have to do as we are told: that’s subordination and that’s not my thing, not my thing at all" G. Schroeder
Subordination is not MY thing either Pelle...oops there I go again.
239. jexster - 9/12/2002 2:39:44 PM
Last April, Colin Powell dragged the Boy Blunder into the Rose Garden where Our Leader demanded the immediate withdrawal of Israeli Troops from the West Bank....
If you want to know what Bush's REAL position is Pelle, don't listen to the Swedish chattering class, Tony Blair, Jacques Chirac, Gerhard Schroeder - don't read Thomas Friedman, listen to the Rev. Lou Shelton, the Traditional Values Coalition, Ariel Sharon & drop all f...
And as if on cue, Bibi on CNN right now pushing the ChickenHawk unilateralist line - REGIME CHANGE NOW
Watch the Moron jump.
240. joezan - 9/12/2002 2:41:28 PM
jasper:
betty has her own blog. How difficult can it be?
241. jexster - 9/12/2002 7:02:50 PM
There was nothing new in President Bush's speech today to the United Nations General Assembly. No new evidence that Iraq's nuclear program is close to producing a bomb; no new proof that Iraq is closely connected to terrorists who have attacked or might attack the United States; no new explanation of why, in the face of our ability to annihilate the Iraqi regime, that regime would use a nuclear weapon against us if it had one....By itself, Bush's case has never made sense. The pretext on which he initially justified war with Iraq—a link between the Iraqi regime and the Sept. 11 plot—has collapsed. Bush has followed that up with countless other insincere arguments. "Al-Qaida terrorists escaped from Afghanistan and are known to be in Iraq," Bush charged today, ignoring the fact that according to his own aides, al-Qaida terrorists have scattered to many other Muslim countries in similar numbers. In Iraq, children are tortured "in the presence of their parents," Bush complained, as though the torture of children in other countries in the absence of their parents were less atrocious.
Bush's most compelling indictment of Iraq—the danger posed by its nuclear program—has never been substantiated.
If you think that an American invasion of Iraq is unwise and that the world would be better off with unfettered U.N. weapons inspections backed by the serious threat of force, you're probably right. But if you get what you want, thank Bush.
Appease This
Bush's useful war lust.
By William Saletan
242. jexster - 9/12/2002 7:03:00 PM
Those who are hung up, for what ever reason, on how much I say, or on how I say what I say, would do well to get the fuck over it and pay more attention to what I say.
And what I say is that today's speech was a charade; that Cheney-Rummy-Bibi-Lou Sheldon-Ariel Sharon have won the day, that all will follow the pattern that Bush followed when Bibi 'n Billy K cut Boy Blunder's right nutt off and fed it to Sharon; and that its going to be hell to pay for America and the world now that the same process is being repeated on the other testicle.
You many not like that I said it or how I said it but I said it and will happily give thanks to Bush's misguided war lust and acknowledge my misreading of the strength of PantyWaist Powell if Bush crawfishes his way out of the cul de sac his big mouth, bigger incompetence, and ChickenHawks got him into...
But don't hold your breath...
Joey...be sure and tune into CNN Nighline for Scott Ritter tonight....I'll need a full report as I am headed to class
243. sakonige - 9/12/2002 8:39:29 PM
Those who are hung up, for what ever reason, on how much I say, or on how I say what I say, would do well to get the fuck over it and pay more attention to what I say.
I don't know why you waste your talents here. You're too quick, too smart, and way too funny for this little gathering.
244. ronski - 9/12/2002 9:06:46 PM
Perfect. Jexster, who cheered the death of Serbs as long as a Democrat president was killing them, finds as his most ardent (only?) supporter the character who posted that no one will care about the death of thousands of middle-class Americans in the 9/11 attacks.
245. ronski - 9/12/2002 9:11:19 PM
And jexster continues to display illusions of grandeur. (I mean, there are pills available for this sort of thing.)
No one objects to the volume of postings when they have something to say. Pincher, PE, and others sometimes post at length, but they are worth reading whether you agree with them or not.
246. ronski - 9/12/2002 9:31:02 PM
As for Message # 213, the East Coast may indeed be the spot. I don't actually live on the coast, exactly, and I don't work in Manhattan, the presumed target, but I do have plans to see Freda Payne and Darlene Love in the City Tuesday night, and would hate to have those plans wrecked. (And yes, the show is called "Love and Payne.")
The East Coast is the target, but only if there is only one bomb. San Francisco is an excellent choice for a second, transported across the Pacific.
But, of course, fears of a dirty bomb or small nuke actually being set off in America are a sheer fantasy.
247. jexster - 9/12/2002 11:25:40 PM
Yo Zan you corn pone crackpot you....out of your "Christian" charity help me out of my confusion
Bush Names Hussein Public Enemy No. 1
I thought that we were fightin the nasty fucks of 9-1-1.
I thought that OBL was PE #1...least that's what they told us.
Help us wacky lefties of the incoherent e-mail missives
Oh and did ya hear Mullah Omar...better get your family gas masks ready...he comin to get your silly ass
248. jexster - 9/12/2002 11:26:23 PM
Does Peter Son of Nothing still need lessons?
I am here
249. jexster - 9/12/2002 11:40:19 PM
Here's a novel idea, jex: You post an idea or two, then wait for someone to reply. I know what you're thinking - No one ever replies to my Mote missives - they just make fun of me. So I make up for quality with quantity.
Here's an idea Z .... try answering even 1 of my posts on its substance....
But you haven't the fuckin balls much less the brains have you now?
I am waiting...
Oh BTW how was Scott Ritter tonight?
There's a somethin you might sink your teeth into....
Yeah right...better stick to Saddam uses viagra
Oh yeah who ordered UNSCOM out of Iraq?
Shove your suggestions up your fuckin ass freak fundie piece of crap
250. concerned - 9/13/2002 2:20:06 AM
It looks to me as if Western European leaders have understood that it is impossible to hold Bush back, and that they will push for a UN mandate in order to try to contain the damage as far as possible.
The 'damage' being no UN Mandate, I presume?
251. concerned - 9/13/2002 2:26:24 AM
I don't know why you waste your talents here. You're too quick, too smart, and way too funny for this little gathering.
How sweet. Make that quick, smart and prolific. Btw, approximately 35 out of the last 50 posts in this thread were by jexster. He's a man with a mission.
252. concerned - 9/13/2002 3:27:31 AM
Well, if the US is going to throw Saddam out, we should do it expeditiously (and preferably after the November elections, as I posted several months ago). Delivering Iraq from Saddam is certainly a good thing; however, there is the potential for a negative economic impact on the US which will increase if the conflict drags on, plus some potential for political fallout against the Bush administration exists. Finally, once Saddam is gone, I hope the US/UN has both a practical plan for bringing a representative government to Iraq and the commitment to carry it out.
253. concerned - 9/13/2002 3:38:25 AM
Re. 252 -
This post presumes the explicit use of overwhelming American military force, btw.
254. concerned - 9/13/2002 3:38:30 AM
Re. 252 -
This post presumes the explicit use of overwhelming American military force, btw.
255. concerned - 9/13/2002 3:38:56 AM
Oops. Itchy trigger finger:)
256. joezan - 9/13/2002 8:07:54 AM
Message # 242:
Those who are hung up, for what ever reason, on how much I say, or on how I say what I say, would do well to get the fuck over it and pay more attention to what I say.
You're just not getting it, jasper...
And what I say is that today's speech was a charade; that
Cheney-Rummy-Bibi-Lou Sheldon-Ariel Sharon have won the day, that all will follow the pattern that Bush followed when Bibi 'n Billy K cut Boy Blunder's right nutt off and fed it to Sharon; and that its going to be hell to pay for America and the world now that the same process is being repeated on the other testicle.
You many not like that I said it or how I said it but I said it and will happily give thanks to Bush's misguided war lust and acknowledge my misreading of the strength of PantyWaist Powell if Bush crawfishes his way out of the cul de sac his big mouth, bigger incompetence, and ChickenHawks got him into...
...See---it's when we do pay attention that whatever veil of sanity you possess is stripped...whatever logic you might be disguising ceases to be of any interest.
257. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/13/2002 10:53:06 AM
258. Edmund Dantes - 9/13/2002 11:18:59 AM
Besides the bloody knife, maybe you could draw a moustache on him for good measure. A long, curly one that turns up at the end. And then a goatee and some horns.
Wizzo, you know a man with your Photoshop talent could probably get a nice job in the online porn industry creating fake celebrity nudes.
259. jexster - 9/13/2002 1:05:42 PM
September 13, 2002 260. Edmund Dantes - 9/13/2002 1:09:41 PM Why he is not susceptible to the same treatment that was used against Stalin, who was also evil and dangerous and cheated. 261. Edmund Dantes - 9/13/2002 1:10:06 PM
International: Bush Names Hussein Public Enemy No. 1
President Bush has formally changed the face of America's primary enemy from Osama bin Laden, whereabouts unknown, to Saddam Hussein, an old nemesis.
President Bush yesterday offered an eloquent, forceful and overdue call for the U.N. to hold Saddam Hussein accountable.
Just one problem: He cited no evidence of any immediate threat, no reason that invading Iraq is any more urgent today than it was in, say, 2000, when Mr. Bush as a candidate huffed and puffed about Saddam but never shared with voters any plans for an invasion.
For months there have been hints about intelligence that the administration supposedly has gathered about an imminent Iraqi threat and about links to terrorism. So it was deflating to hear again that Saddam is a monster whose regime tortures children in front of parents. All true — as it was a decade ago....
Wag the Dog
"The fundamental question is left unanswered: Why initiating war against Saddam is better than the next option, which is deterring and containing him. You could agree that this is an evil guy — he is evil — who defied the U.N. resolutions — he did — and still ask why he is not susceptible to the same treatment that was used against Stalin, who was also evil and dangerous and cheated." Graham T. Allison, author The Essence of Decision
Containing Stalin was not without cost (in human lives and misery, as well as treasure), nor was it easy. Moreover, we were already in the situation of having fewer options.
Next question.
262. Edmund Dantes - 9/13/2002 1:12:32 PM
Maybe you like for your posts to look like a clown wrote them, Jasper, but kindly contain the seltzer water and pancake makeup within the confines of your own ejaculations.
263. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/13/2002 3:04:42 PM
The dick-minded Dickhead has spoken!
What's the matter, Miz has your limp brain got ya down--or is it other flaccid parts?
264. Al D - 9/13/2002 3:42:08 PM
Now the writer of the above claims to be an adult, but can any consider that a message from an intelligent, rational adult.
265. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/13/2002 4:36:01 PM
From a lurker:
Minute of Silence Followed By Several Minutes of Loud Braying About War
09/11/2002 New York, New York -- President George Bush observed a moment of silence today, in honor of victims of the September 11th terrorist attack.
He then followed the silence with several minutes of braying concerning vengeance, the war on terror, war with the non-democratic dictator of Iraq, friendship with the non-democratic dictator of Saudi Arabia, and how meter readers looking into your living room in search of terrorist cells is what American freedom is all about. He called for halting the Iraqi development of weapons of mass destruction, threatening to use American weapons of mass destruction as a last - make that first resort.
Bush wrapped up his braying by wrapping himself in a flag, defecating in his hands, tossing the feces at effigies of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, thumping his chest, brachiating across the stage scaffolding, performing social grooming on Donald Rumsfeld and attempting to mount his lovely, somber wife Laura. His advances were rebuffed and he sulked off in search of a banana.
(c) The Rev. Shayne Dark, correspondent, FSCCBN (Fat Seal Clubbing Canadian Bastard Network)
266. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/13/2002 4:38:36 PM
Al FYI: To brachiate is walk like a monkey.
267. joezan - 9/13/2002 8:29:49 PM
FSCCBN (Fat Seal Clubbing Canadian Bastard Network)
Sign me up!
268. joezan - 9/13/2002 8:41:57 PM
Anyway, despite jasper's many impassioned pleas for sanity - for a halt to the wardrum-beating - for sainthood for Scott Ritter - for the de-nutting of our President, here and in hundreds of barely more coherent email missives to thousands of elected officials...despite, even, wearing the same genuine WizardOfWhimsy teeshirt for a week straight ---- despite this herculean effort, it looks like it is now All Aboard the Baghdad Express.
GW has played the UN and Saddam like fiddles. Congress may now stall and wring their hands all they want - it's a done deal.
269. joezan - 9/13/2002 8:53:27 PM
I mean, with two cards showing, he just called the UN, raised them a few billion, and then got them to force the bluffing Iraqis into showing their meager hand.
Brilliant.
270. joezan - 9/13/2002 9:05:13 PM
But what I really want to know is, what is this country coming to when three guys can't joke around, in public yet, on 9-11, about being involved in a terrorist plot to blow up more American stuff, just because they happen to be of Arab descent?
I am just SOOOO worried about the erosion of my personal liberties.
Really.
I am.
271. joezan - 9/13/2002 9:06:26 PM
272. sakonige - 9/13/2002 9:57:04 PM
#270
No. The question is, where is your country going to when people wearing Muslim clothing are convicted of being terrorists on a waitresses word when they happen stop in a coffee shop on the way to school? Do you stupid assholes really want all Muslims to hate you as much as you hate them? You'll probably get what you are asking for.
273. jexster - 9/13/2002 9:57:42 PM
The papers in this collection grew out of discussions held at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace from late April to late July of this year. The discussions included top regional and military experts, former inspectors with dozens of man-years' experience in Iraq, and individuals with intimate knowledge of the diplomatic situation at the United Nations.
New Approach: Coercive Inspections
By Jessica T. Mathews, Pres. Carnegie Inst
Hardly a "new approach" as I suggested same 12/98 and again a few days back....
But Carnegie did send me to the Air Force Academy in 1972 for an Intl Politics Seminar for bright boys...
Fuck you pelle
274. joezan - 9/13/2002 10:05:29 PM
Uh - they were let go, Syko.
The entire thing was a perfectly reasonable response to their little "joke". Now, they ought to receive a bill from the State of Florida for all the trouble they caused.
275. Al D - 9/13/2002 10:12:52 PM
sakonige
If they were southern rednecks talking about going on over to the Indian village to off a few red skins, would you alert the police?
You are off the mark when you talk of them being convicted of being terrorists on a waitresses(sic) word when they happen stop in a coffee shop on the way to school?
276. joezan - 9/13/2002 10:17:03 PM
This map of the Mideast (thanks to JJ, whose link in I&P I copied) will most likely be coming in handy pretty soon.
Just click on the name of the country you'd like to examine more closely from the wider, regional map.
The link is also at the top of this page.
277. jexster - 9/13/2002 10:42:20 PM
"As Bush demanded action from the United Nations against Iraq, a US emissary was lobbying for support in Russia, the one member of the UN Security Council that might block approval for the use of force. John Bolton, the Undersecretary of State, was officially in Moscow to discuss non-proliferation, but officials said privately that Iraq was at the top of his agenda. A Russian veto would force the United States and Britain to reconsider their plans to oust President Saddam Hussein or to wage a lone military campaign against Iraq...Economic factors [BRIBES] will be a key argument, with a promise that Russia will be offered big contracts in the rebuilding of a postwar Iraq at the top of the list of incentives. The Soviet Union was largely responsible for the development of Iraq's military and industrial infrastructure and Russian firms would be well placed to help to modernise it once Saddam has gone."
Times of London
Ditto
The Los Angeles Times - Bush Backing on Iraq? Let's Make a Deal
Allies: Behind-the-scenes talks get underway to see which inducements might sway nations
278. joezan - 9/13/2002 11:36:56 PM
Like we couldn't see that coming from a mile away when the Bush Admin expressed "shock - SHOCK, I tell you!, at Putin's plans to go rebel hunting in Chechnya.
"Ok, Pooty-poot - this is really gonna cost us, but alright - you can kill all the Islamists you want in Chechnya, and we'll even make sure you get the $6b the Iraqis owe you, but you gotta promise to mind your own beeswax when we go into Iraq. We got a deal?"
279. joezan - 9/13/2002 11:39:26 PM
All aboard the Baghdad Express - first stop, Moscow.
Next stop, Jordan.
280. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/13/2002 11:43:30 PM
281. joezan - 9/14/2002 8:46:30 AM
Duh...
282. joezan - 9/14/2002 9:48:28 AM
Howard Fineman gets it:
WASHINGTON, Sept. 11 Alexey Lavrov is a
shrewd operator. He couldn't have survived for
eight years as Russia?s ambassador to the United
Nations any other way. And something he told
me the other day in New York gave me further
evidence that behind George W. Bush's rootin'
tootin' go-it-alone bluster there has long been a
plan to collect allies for war with Iraq...
...I was in New York the other day for a luncheon in
honor of the victims and heroes of Sept. 11. Lavrov was a
guest, and I asked him what he thought Bush was up to at
the United Nations. He was surprisingly upbeat. He said he
thought the president and British Prime Minister Tony Blair
had agreed at Camp David late last Saturday to seek some
sort of U.N. ultimatum-style resolution giving Saddam one
last clear chance to avoid obliteration. The resolution would
be handled in the Security Council, Lavrov said, led by
Britain and France...
283. joezan - 9/14/2002 9:51:44 AM
...Lavrov didn?t like the idea, popular in Washington, of
insisting on what officials refer to as "coercive inspectors."
"Too dangerous for everyone involved," Lavrov said, and,
in any case, the Iraqis wouldn't go for them (which may be
just what Bush wants.) The Russians, who want oil -and
money the Iraqis owe them - might well be willing to
accept the one last-chance idea; Americans would want
tough language limiting the deadline of the ultimatum and
insisting that the wording contain language authorizing the
United States to take enforcement action if Saddam says
"no." The point is that this canny Russian made it sound as if
backroom talks were already under way, or soon would be
- and he was speaking before Bush's U.N. speech.
284. jexster - 9/14/2002 10:08:22 AM
MOSCOW, Sept. 13 -- Russia refused to budge today in its opposition to an attack against Iraq, arguing that President Bush has yet to exhaust all options for a political solution even as it insisted on the right to attack a neighbor accused of sheltering terrorists.
Russia Still Opposed to Iraq Attack
PootyPoot Wants Free Hand in to Deal with Georgia
The tiblisi one Zan not Atlanta.
285. jexster - 9/14/2002 10:09:27 AM
Joke at the UN...unilateralism - Bush goes it alone
multilateralism Bush goes to the UN and goes it alone
286. jexster - 9/14/2002 10:11:37 AM
Bush's radio address refers to Iraq as "growing danger" not imminent, not grave...
In no Colin Powell quotes over the last day or so have I seen an reference to threat to regional security.
287. jexster - 9/14/2002 10:14:07 AM
So if I wanted to sell some war to Arabs, I would offer it as precedent for future action against that other Middle E state that violates UN resolutions.
The one that actually HAS WMD.
288. joezan - 9/14/2002 10:18:32 AM
Oh? Then maybe Mr. Powell needs to read Ha'aretz:
Iraq has stepped up its attempts to move weapons and financial aid to the Palestinian Authority areas, in an effort to resume terror attacks against Israel. Baghdad's plan is to refocus international attention on the Israeli-Arab conflict and hope for a second front in case of a U.S. attack against Baghdad.
The defense establishment has spotted new signs of attempted Iraqi weapons smuggling to the West Bank and Gaza, including from Jordan. The Iraqi-backed Arab Liberation Front yesterday held a rally in Gaza where financial grants from Saddam Hussein were handed out to 32 families of Palestinian dead. The rally included an appearance by Hamas spiritual leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, who called for "unity in the ranks of the resistance," and drew a connection between Palestinian resistance to the Israeli occupation and the U.S. threats to strike at Iraq.
289. jexster - 9/14/2002 10:19:11 AM
To his admirers, Scott Ritter -- who turned up in Baghdad last week to blast the Bush administration's war plans before Iraq's parliament -- is something of a modern-day Daniel Ellsberg, who serves his country patriotically by protesting a government policy he considers misguided and immoral. {YES!!!]
To his detractors, Ritter is a shill for Saddam Hussein -- a deeper-voiced Tokyo Rose. Ritter "is a paid spokesman now for Iraq. The traitor bastard should be shot," one critic of the former U.N. weapons inspector fumed on the online forum Paratrooper.com.
SF Chron 9/14
290. jexster - 9/14/2002 10:22:23 AM
I wanna be an airborne ranger
Live on blood and guts and danger
I wanna go to Vietam
I wanna kill some Viet Cong
291. jexster - 9/14/2002 10:25:11 AM
Q: Won't Iraqis dance on the streets of Baghdad if the U.S. topples Saddam?
A: He's more popular than any time since the Gulf War. Saddam has cynically manipulated the economic sanctions against the Iraqi people for his own political gain, transferring blame away from himself to the United States .. .
The Iraqis, who have suffered egregiously, don't like Saddam, but they have rallied around him and his regime because they hate us more. We may be able to generate support for an invasion among some of the Shiites and some of the Kurds, but to get to Baghdad you must penetrate the "Sunni Triangle." Sunnis will not rise up against Saddam -- ever. They will fight tooth and nail.
292. jexster - 9/14/2002 10:25:23 AM
Q: Is there a chemical or biological agent that Iraqis had, or may have, that keeps you up at night?
A: The most dangerous thing Iraq could have ever had was a nuclear weapon. The nuclear weapon Iraq was trying to build was not deliverable by bomb or ballistic missile. It was a large, bulky device that they hoped to bury and set off to let the world know they had a nuclear weapon. They never achieved that.
As for biological weapons, Iraq never perfected the means to aerosolize anthrax. They never perfected the means to turn it into a dry powder. What they produced was crude. The only way an Iraqi biological agent would kill you is if it landed on your head.
With chemical weapons they don't have the ability to produce precise, mist sprays to deliver a deadly agent over a wide area. Am I sleeping well? You're darned right I am.
Q: During your trip to Iraq did you see things that horrified you?
A: Yeah, but it had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction. It was how Saddam Hussein brutally represses his people. The most horrific thing I saw was the children's prison in downtown Baghdad. Probably 200 kids from toddlers to 12 year olds. The stench was unreal -- urine, feces, vomit, sweat. The kids were howling and dying of thirst. We threw water in there, but the Iraqis probably took the water out afterward. They were the kids of political prisoners.
293. joezan - 9/14/2002 10:31:26 AM
Well, see - now I'm convinced: Saddam must be left in power.
294. jexster - 9/14/2002 10:54:04 AM
Don't worry JoeZ..he will.
Candor is so little prized in Washington that you want to shake the hand of anyone who dares commit it. So cheers to Andrew Card, the president's chief of staff, for telling The Times's Elisabeth Bumiller the real reason that his boss withheld his full-frontal move on Saddam Hussein until September: "From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August." Mr. Card has taken some heat for talking about a war in which many may die as if it were the rollout of a new S.U.V. But he wasn't lying, and history has already proved him right. This campaign has been so well timed and executed that the new product already owns the market. The unofficial motto of the 9/11 anniversary may have been "Never forget," but by 9/12, if not before, the war on Al Qaeda was already fading from memory as the world was invited to test-drive the war on Iraq.
Never Forget What?
295. jexster - 9/14/2002 10:54:43 AM
Ronski -
Mr. Parcher needs to see you.
296. jexster - 9/14/2002 10:57:00 AM
`Saddam is evil' is not enough. A number of people are evil, and some are even our friends. `Saddam has weapons of mass destruction' is not enough. A number of countries do. What the people need now is hard data that demonstrate conclusively that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction which he is readying to use on the people of the U.S. or the people of the West." Peggy Noonan of all people.
297. jexster - 9/14/2002 11:05:05 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Private Joker: How can you shoot women and children?
Door Gunner: Easy... you don't lead 'em so much.
[laughs]
Door Gunner: Ain't war hell?!
298. jexster - 9/14/2002 11:10:12 AM
What we have been getting instead is the one thing worse than no data — false data. For months, administration officials have been trying to implicate Iraq in 9/11 with the story of an alleged April 2001 meeting in Prague between Mohamed Atta and a Saddam spy. But the C.I.A. can find no evidence of this, and the 21-page fact sheet the U.S. released with the president's speech mentions no Saddam-9/11 link at all.
As for nuclear arms, last weekend in his appearance with Tony Blair the president referred to a 1998 International Atomic Energy Agency report that said Iraq was "six months away" from developing a nuclear weapon, adding "I don't know what more evidence we need." Plenty more, as it happens, because an agency spokesman says no such report exists. This is why those who most want to believe Mr. Bush, from a conservative G.O.P. Senate leader like Don Nickles to our allies, keep saying (in Mr. Nickles's words), "You're not giving us enough."
It's this high-handedness that echoes the run-up to Vietnam.
299. jexster - 9/14/2002 11:11:24 AM
ARTICLE 5 - THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
You shall not kill.[54]
You have heard that it was said to the men of old, "You shall not kill: and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment."
But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment.[55]
2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:
- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
300. jexster - 9/14/2002 1:48:18 PM
For those whose interest in the topic may range deeper than conjuring fancied slights to their fancied international political expert bona fides, for those whose interest may run deeper than just how many dune coons can I kill today, and indeed for the butterbar if our moderator would be so gracious.... 
Sixty page document prepared by the Carnegie Endowment downloadable in full (60 pp. pdf) or by articles
Contents
A New Approach: Coercive Inspections by Jessica T. Mathews
1. A Military Framework for Coercive Inspections by Charles G. Boyd
2. Intelligence Support for Weapons Inspectors in Iraq by Rolf Ekeus
3. Multilateral Support for a New Regime by Joseph Cirincione
4. Persuading Saddam without Destabilizing the Gulf by Patrick Clawson
5. Calculations of Iraq's Neighbors by Shibley Telhami
6. The Russian Elite and Iraq: An Unexpected Picture by Rose Gottemoeller
7. The UNSCOM Record by Stephen Black
8. The IAEA Iraq Action Team Record: Activities and Findings by Garry B. Dillon
9. New Inspections in Iraq: What Can Be Achieved? by Terence Taylor
10. Establishing Noncompliance Standards by David Albright
11. Tracking Iraqi Procurement by Fouad El-Khatib
12. The Legal Basis for UN Weapons Inspections by David Cortright
301. jexster - 9/14/2002 2:59:54 PM
There exists an intrinsic connection between the common good on the one hand and the structure and function of public authority on the other. The moral order, which needs public authority in order to promote the common good in human society, requires also that the authority be effective in attaining that end Pope John XXIII
Lies My President Told Me
It's mid-September during alleged wartime. Do you know where your government is?
302. Edmund Dantes - 9/14/2002 3:32:56 PM
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all for coming. First, I'm honored to be able to meet with my colleagues from Central Africa. The Secretary of State and I look forward to a very frank and constructive dialogue about how to continue our common pursuit against terror, and how we will work together to promote prosperity. I look forward to constructive dialogue. So thank you all for coming.
Before we begin our discussion, let me answer a few questions. Are the interpreters working right now? They are? Yours isn't working, okay. Before we begin our dialogue, I'll take three questions from the American press corps, starting with Mr. Fournier, who writes for the Associated Press.
Q Thank you, sir. Knowing what you know about Saddam, what are the odds that he's going to meet all your demands and avoid confrontation?
THE PRESIDENT: I am highly doubtful that he'll meet our demands. I hope he does, but I'm highly doubtful. The reason I'm doubtful is he's had 11 years to meet the demands. For 11 long years he has basically told the United Nations and the world he doesn't care. And so, therefore, I am doubtful, but nevertheless, made the decision to move forward to work with the world community. And I hope the world community knows that we're extremely serious about what I said yesterday, and we expect quick resolution to the issue. And that's starting with quick action on a resolution.
Q Yes, sir, how soon are you expecting the resolution from the United Nations? In a week, month, days?
THE PRESIDENT: As soon as possible.
303. Edmund Dantes - 9/14/2002 3:34:48 PM
US News
George W. Bush, in his September 12 speech, like Daniel Patrick Moynihan in his years as ambassador, did the United Nations the favor of taking it seriously. "We created the United Nations Security Council, so that, unlike the League of Nations, our deliberations would be more than talk," Bush said. Today the "standards of human dignity shared by all" and the "system of security defended by all" are "challenged" by an "outlaw regime," "exactly the kind of aggressive threat the United Nations was born to confront." Bush then recounted how Iraq's aggression against Kuwait was condemned by the U.N. "To suspend hostilities, to spare himself, Iraq's
dictator accepted a series of commitments." Then, in 13 fact-filled paragraphs, Bush described how Saddam Hussein had failed to keep those commitments. His words are reminiscent of Franklin Roosevelt's recital of Japan's perfidy on Dec. 8, 1941– repetitive, even a bit boring. But the point is made. We are talking about evil people doing evil things.
304. Edmund Dantes - 9/14/2002 3:36:58 PM
America must not hesitate
If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow. The stakes couldn't be higher. Someday, some way I guarantee you he will use his arsenal."
With the drumbeat of war against Iraq coming out of Washington these days, one might think that these were the words of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld or General Tommy Franks. However, these words were not spoken by any member of the Bush administration; rather this quote is attributed to former President Bill Clinton. Clinton was giving a speech on Feb. 17, 1998, and made the case for military action against Iraq. Clinton's words came just weeks after the passage of Senate Concurrent Resolution 71, which was co-sponsored by Senator Tom Daschle and about a dozen other Democrats. The Senate resolution urged Clinton to "take all necessary and appropriate actions to respond to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
305. Edmund Dantes - 9/14/2002 3:41:30 PM
World Warns Iraq to Obey UN or Face the Music
Relieved that the United States was not launching war on Iraq immediately, world leaders have welcomed Bush's call for the United Nations to force Baghdad to comply with its will.
"We share fully the deep concerns over Iraq's defiance and over its weapons of mass destruction," Danish Foreign Minister Per Stig Moeller, whose country is current EU president, said after separate talks with Powell and Ivanov.
"We put great value on the decision of President Bush to address the problem of Iraq multilaterally," he said, adding that Iraq could no longer waste time on weapons inspections.
306. jexster - 9/14/2002 3:42:55 PM
The Carnegie Link will also refer you to a real video panel discussion held on Thursday to discuss the New Approach publication.
On the panel Ambassador Rolf Ekeus – Chairman, Stockholm International Peace Research Institute & Former Executive Chairman, UNSCOM
307. jexster - 9/14/2002 3:45:58 PM
Lotsa talk about multilateral approaches none about unilateral regime change esp from Per Stig who is Standin Tall B4 The Lofty Mast of Bullcrap
308. Edmund Dantes - 9/14/2002 3:59:49 PM
Straw tells U.N. to stamp authority on Iraq
> Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has urged the United Nations to take decisive action against Iraq for defying its authority or risk being reduced to an impotent talking-shop....
> "Saddam Hussein has persistently mocked the authority of this United Nations," Straw declared. "So those of us who believe in an active international community cannot stand by and do nothing while Iraq continues to defy the U.N."
309. Edmund Dantes - 9/14/2002 4:02:35 PM
The United States has reserved a total of 20 air corridors across the Atlantic Ocean in the past 24 hours, some of them with access to Portugal's Lajes airbase on the Azores islands where an US air force unit is stationed, the Portuguese weekly Expresso reported Saturday.
Quoting air controllers in the Azores, Expresso said that the United States normally only has four corridors.
"There can only be one reason for this step, the transport of large quantities of light materiel that can only be transported by plane, as well as military personnel, to the Gulf region," said the weekly citing military experts.
310. Edmund Dantes - 9/14/2002 4:04:42 PM
Iraq has developed toxic gas strike aircraft
[E]ngineers working for Iraqi President Saddam Hussein have changed old Russian-made MiG-23 fighters into drones that can release deadly biological and chemical substances.
311. jexster - 9/14/2002 4:04:55 PM
As I am typing this the first Stop the War Demo - about 1000 marchers - is parading outside my apartment window...
See ya
312. jexster - 9/14/2002 4:37:29 PM
My first Anti-war march in 32 years
OK so it was only 5 blocks up Laguna to Jefferson Square but I am sporting a spiffy new button
WANTED TERROR MURDER
OSAMA BUSH LADEN
with an appropriately decorated Mullah Moron
and 3 nice bumperstickers
"Bush Lost"
"GWB Serial Killer"
And my special favorite
FUCK BUSH!!!
Major marches set for 9/28, 10/26
for more info... 
313. jexster - 9/14/2002 5:07:49 PM
AMB. EKEUS: (Off mike) – it’s only part of the speech but the president stated that from ’91 to ’95 nothing was accomplished on the BW field until the defection and you know the defection of officer Hussein Kamal, the son-in-law of Saddam Hussein, who also happened to be at that when he defected being the director of all the weapons of mass destruction programs. However, whatever happened was that already in February UNSCOM presented its suspicions about the biological program. We had been working hard from the first day, didn’t find anything until we started a systematic assessment of all, what we call, capable facilities – every lab, hospital, university was visited and we also – fortunately the new scientific development in the field of gene development, we could start to also make new assessment of test materials picked up in various sites in Iraq. 314. jexster - 9/14/2002 5:08:25 PM Hussein Kamal had practically nothing to add because he didn’t know much about these things. It’s like with the CEO of General Motors. I don’t think he can explain much what is under the hood – (laughter) -- you know, of one of his fancy cars.
In April, therefore – in April ’95 I presented an official and public Security Council report to the Security Council, which is in the public domain, not in secret. It is there and there I outlined that Iraq had a massive biological weapons program. I pointed already to the big production facility at Hakam.
On the 10th of August Hussein Kamal defected to Jordan. I had the opportunity to debrief him very thoroughly, but it is very clear – it’s obvious that his defection was probably the opposite. What happened was that he was blamed for spilling or allowing the main secret of the biological weapons to be detected. The inspectors’ success – it was major success of science, of systematic assessment, of the material balance philosophy I outlined and very, very good development of science at that time, the development of new technologies in this field, which cracked the case.
Of course after that in autumn ’95, Iraq itself added to what had been detected. It added especially details about its research program, which was also dealing with viruses and so on, which were of course created the – certain new additional dimension. But I don’t believe that our biologists ever managed to find that. And to conclude that story anyhow, the facility was defined, the program was defined, the big al Hakam facility was destroyed on the leadership of Terry Taylor, who happens to sit down front. I’m very happy to see him. He was in charge and he had, I could tell you, a very reckless approach to that. I don’t think even the toilets were allowed to stand up. Everything should be crushed thoroughly and there was nothing left.
So with that story, I’m sorry to counter the president on this case, but I don’t intend to go against his speech in general. That’s just on this point. I think it’s significant because it shows that biological inspection system, which many say is not possible -- showed it was possible. It was possible to detect.
Scott Ritter made the same point on CNN...but he's on Saddam's payroll.
315. Edmund Dantes - 9/14/2002 9:04:04 PM
One guy who missed Jasper's peace march
"The cave was completely erased from the ground and became nothing."
316. jexster - 9/14/2002 10:13:52 PM
As Shroeder Surges on Anti-Bush War Sentiment, Stoiber Plays the Dune Coon Card
317. jexster - 9/14/2002 10:14:50 PM
Message # 315 Babble.
318. jexster - 9/14/2002 10:27:42 PM
Can the Bush administration be for one minute aware of the solidarity and sympathy capital it has wasted?... People here are more afraid of George Bush than of Saddam Hussein. Jacques Chriac
319. jexster - 9/14/2002 10:37:38 PM
SCOTT RITTER:
Time's Person of the Week
"The unkindest challenge to Bush's plans to take out Saddam Hussein this week came from erstwhile true-blue American hero Scott Ritter. Familiar to Americans as the rock-jawed Marine intelligence officer who stood up to Saddam's bullies in 1998 while serving with the UN inspection team... Ritter was back on America's TV screens this week, but with a dramatically different message: Bush had no proof of any new weapons of mass destruction threat emanating from Iraq, Ritter says, and he was lying to the American people to get them to go to war. Once a favorite guest of hawkish Republicans who regularly invited him to testify at congressional committees about the dangers of turning a blind eye to Iraq's weapons programs, this week Ritter was instead addressing the Iraqi legislature, decrying his own country's claims - and warning that readmitting inspectors was the only way to avoid a war."
320. joezan - 9/14/2002 10:47:44 PM
Funny you should mention the peace march, jasper.
I'm in the middle of forming my own peace group. And if all goes well we will have our inaugural march sometime in early November, in Ann Arbor - just about the time all the other peace groups will be kicking into high gear.
Look for us - we are called Peace in Our Time, On Our Terms.
Catchy, doncha think?
BTW - that Iraq report is in the butterbar, per your request.
321. RustlerPike - 9/15/2002 1:13:23 AM
I think the quote in Message # 292 is reason enough to go to war on Saddam and murder him.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is a piece of shit.
322. RustlerPike - 9/15/2002 1:23:56 AM
What was Qatar given in order to cooperate with the war? Joe? Anyone? I understand there's quite a lot of ordinance being poured into that country as we post.
323. RustlerPike - 9/15/2002 1:30:05 AM
OK, who's badder?
1)
2) 
324. RustlerPike - 9/15/2002 1:34:16 AM
If I were Bush's advisor I would tell him to say what I said in #321. To talk about those dying children.
325. RustlerPike - 9/15/2002 1:40:32 AM
Jexster, I swear to God, if you can read that description - from a source you think is impeccable - and still not support this war, you are not a leftie, but a cunt. A total cunt. A jerk, a piece of shit.
Sorry to pollute your thread like this, Joe, but descriptions of sadism, especially towards children, make me real angry.
Just take your mask off, Jexster. I swear to God, if you don't come out and say that a war against a man who does that to children is an imperative, I'm not letting you post in my thread any more.
I think anyone who tries to exert influence - even in the form of posts to a small webs forum and letters to congressmen that nobody reads - to prevent or delay the liberation of those children is a criminal and I won't give you any space on which to perpetrate your crime.
326. RustlerPike - 9/15/2002 1:54:46 AM
Michael Oren: "Where is the Outrage?
Admiral Yamamoto, commander of the Pearl Harbor attack, later lamented that Japan had "awakened a sleeping giant." His prophecy proved entirely accurate. Today, we look back on America's recovery from that catastrophe with overwhelming awe and pride. It will be interesting to see, then, how posterity judges the aftermath of September 11. Questions may well be raised about America's failure to respond to terror more vigorously, and its preference for mourning over vengeance.
Why, historians might ask, were young people so reluctant to enlist? Why would the president entertain the leaders of the country that supplied most of the perpetrators of - and the funding for - the murder of 3,000 Americans?
One conclusion, however, is already indisputable.
Had it responded to Pearl Harbor as it did to September 11, the US would not have won World War II, and conversely, only by displaying the same selflessness, unity, and determination they showed 60 years ago, can Americans now triumph over terror. History rarely repeats itself, but for freedom's sake, Americans must assure that it does.
327. robertjayb - 9/15/2002 2:26:00 PM
328. ElliottRW - 9/15/2002 6:46:36 PM
robertjayb,
Your cartoon, while delightful, is asking my browser for a cookie. Just thought you might like to know.
329. joezan - 9/15/2002 7:29:10 PM
Can you imagine being an Iraqi General right now? Especially one who was around for the Gulf War?
If I were Saddam, I'd be real worried.
330. Edmund Dantes - 9/15/2002 8:06:38 PM
331. jexster - 9/15/2002 8:47:33 PM
332. jexster - 9/15/2002 10:18:14 PM
Bush Briefings "a Joke", Nothing Not Already in Media [Wpost]
Iraq's WMD Arsenal: Deadly But Limited
Many well-meaning political figures have made the mistake that Senator James Inhofe made on Meet the Press on August 18: "Our intelligence system has said that we know that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction -- I believe including nuclear. There's not one person on this panel who would tell you unequivocally that he doesn't have the missile means now, or is nearly getting the missile means to deliver a weapon of mass destruction. And I for one am not willing to wait for that to happen."
In fact, U.S. intelligence agencies do not believe that Iraq has a nuclear weapon, or that the country is near developing either a nuclear weapon or a long-range missile.
Effective policy must be governed by facts, not fears. Step one is to disaggregate the now over-used catch phrase "weapons of mass destruction" that includes nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. All are not equal in threat. The possession or use of a chemical weapon that could kill dozens is not as dangerous as the possession or use of a nuclear weapon that could kill millions.
333. jexster - 9/15/2002 10:18:25 PM
Conclusion
There is no evidence that Iraq has a nuclear weapon or will soon have one, unless Saddam is able to get fissile material from some other nation. The greatest threat from a weapon of mass destruction would be from the delivery of a biological agent, probably by non-missile means, that is, by truck or ship or possibly small aircraft. However, it is unclear what such an attack would accomplish and why Saddam would attempt such an attack. If the attack were covert and the assailants unknown, there would be no glory or gain for Iraq; if Iraq were known as the source of the attack-or even suspected as the source-there would undoubtedly be an overwhelming and devastating counter-attack that would eliminate the Iraqi leadership. While there may be thousands of chemical-tipped rockets and bombs still in Iraq, these are primarily short-range weapons. If delivered, dozens or hundreds would die, but not significantly more than would die from conventional military assaults or terrorist attacks on critical infrastructures.
Iraq has chemical and biological weapons that would complicate any military actions, but it is not clear that these capabilities are rapidly increasing in the absence of UN inspections. The administration-and other nations-should disclose their detailed threat assessments as soon as possible to permit an informed public debate on the threats from Iraq and their urgency.
>
334. joezan - 9/15/2002 10:22:04 PM
We're past all that, jex.
Get yer head out of the sand - the gauntlet has been thrown down.
335. ronski - 9/16/2002 10:28:53 AM
Iraq "Will Have Nuclear Bomb in Months"
336. ronski - 9/16/2002 10:31:31 AM
337. jexster - 9/16/2002 12:20:22 PM
JERUSALEM, Sept. 15 — For Israel, which was struck by 39 Iraqi Scud missiles during the Persian Gulf war, the countdown to a possible new one poses two fundamental challenges — to prepare for a new Iraqi attack, and to decide whether to retaliate.
The possibility that Saddam Hussein will lash out at Israel with biological, chemical or radiological weapons has led to intensive preparations, under way for some time now, accompanied by daily reassurances from the government that the country is ready.
The newspaper Haaretz, citing Western intelligence analysts, reported today that Iraq had prepared a number of longer-range Soviet-made aircraft for one-way, suicide missions to drop "dirty bombs," weapons that scatter radioactive debris.
338. jexster - 9/16/2002 12:30:25 PM
No "we" aren't "past all that" Z...you on the other hand have never reached "that" so you cannot be past it...
For one thing, if you are correct, and I think you are, that Bush's speech to the UN was a charade, it affects both the morality of fighting the war, the Christian's duty to resist that war, and the military strategy for fighting it.
If, likewise, I am right that this is not nor has it ever a war about WMD, evidence that establishes the pretext for pig shit, also establishes the culpability of those who press the lie, and ignorance of those who believe it.
But if, on the other hand, my hunch is wrong, and the UN is in play, then too will be the Coercive Inspection Option (first appearance - the Fray/Slate in a post by yours truly) and the post is quite relevant.
More importantly, if the UN Coercive Inspection Option, urged by J Baker in yesterday's WPost, is in play as it will be if only to expose the charade, then of course, that article, which you read among the 60 page Carnegie Endowment document on the subject (being a conscientitious moderator), keys the rationale for such an approach.
339. jexster - 9/16/2002 12:43:24 PM
Message # 336OH BOY! Two Al Q ops with "a connection to Iraq"!!!
Stop the fuckin presses, load up the Borg Blog. There are hundreds, maybe thousands, in Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, the US.
That's one helluva causus belli there.
Let's review the bidding re: pretexts for pig shit:
- 9-11 Rumsfeld orders Irak Attak planning to begin
- Nov.-Jan 01-02 - Powell instigates Operation Embarrass the Imbeciles - sends Woolsey on feckless chase for OBL links
- March-9/11/02 - Bush regime fails to present any credible case that Saddam poses a nuclear or CBW threat or indeed threat in any other form
- 9.12 to present - Bush regime changes rationale to "War to Enforce UN resolutions", itself a patent crock, for UN Resolution 687 is "self-enforcing" the Council having decided in 1991 that the remedy for non-compliance would be sanctions, and amended (re-adopted) same just a few months ago
340. jexster - 9/16/2002 12:52:46 PM
Message # 335 A more detailed report appeared in the Times of London but be that as it may, its rank speculation and suspect as well.
- Dr Hamza gave evidence on Iraq's nuke capability before Senator Joe Biden’s Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings on Iraq in Washington last August but never mentioned this new "threat".
- The Carnegie Endowment interviewed Dr. Hamza in connection with the section of its new book on proliferation
dealing with Irak:
341. jexster - 9/16/2002 12:53:30 PM
Nuclear Weapon Capability
Iraq ratified the Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1969, pledging not to manufacture nuclear weapons and agreeing to place all its nuclear materials and facilities under safeguards. Soon thereafter, Iraq began violating its NPT obligations by secretly pursuing a nuclear weapon program. The program was centered around the Osiraq research reactor purchased from France in 1976, which was capable of irradiating uranium to produce significant quantities of plutonium. Saddam Hussein planned to slowly extract enough plutonium for a bomb. Israel's preemptive strike on the reactor in June 1981 did not end Iraq's program, but expanded it.
Iraqi defector and former nuclear weapons director Khadir Hamza says, "Israel made a mistake." The bombing ended the plutonium effort but began a new program to produce highly-enriched uranium. "At the beginning we had approximately five hundred people working, which increased to seven thousand working after the Israeli bombing. The secret program became a much larger and ambitious program."1
The program was substantial, but plagued with problems. Still, Iraq may have been only a few years away from producing enough highly-enriched uranium for a bomb at the time of the Gulf War. After the war, International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors supervised the destruction of most of the nuclear weapon program facilities and removed all weapon-usable nuclear material from Iraq. In 1998, the IAEA reaffirmed that there were no indications that Iraq had achieved its objective of producing nuclear weapons, nor were there indications that Iraq had produced more than a few grams of weapon-usable nuclear material or had otherwise acquired such material.
342. jexster - 9/16/2002 12:53:41 PM
It also reported that there were no indications that there remained in Iraq any physical capability for the production of weapon-usable nuclear material of any practical significance and that the IAEA had removed all weapon-usable nuclear material (research reactor fuel) from Iraq.2
Still, Iraq may have secretly reconstructed some nuclear capabilities. Some experts believe Saddam may have a workable design for a weapon, but no official report claims that he yet has the material to put in it. CIA officials told the Senate in March 2002, that Iraq, unconstrained, would need several years to produce enough material for a nuclear weapon.3
343. jexster - 9/16/2002 12:57:52 PM
The CIA also knows Dr. Hamza...
Which raises the ultimate, credibility undermining fact - that despite all these efforts of the Bush regime to jin up excuses for all this war frenzy, the National Defense Estimate re: Iraq has not been updated since the final year of the Last President of the US's administration.
344. jexster - 9/16/2002 12:59:13 PM
And thanks JoeZ for putting the Carnegie link up there even though we are "past all that"...slick REAL Player video of the panel discussion of bush's speech also available at that site.
345. jexster - 9/16/2002 1:00:59 PM
All that in 1/2 an hour!
I am FUCKIN GOOD, right Pelle?
346. jexster - 9/16/2002 1:02:36 PM
2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:
- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
347. jexster - 9/16/2002 1:44:03 PM
RE: Shifting Sands or Diplomatic Strategem?
Connect the dots:
348. jexster - 9/16/2002 3:33:43 PM
The Limits of Coercive Diplomacy
Way back when, in Doc Freedenberg's National Security Decision Making Grad Seminar, we read Alexander George and T. Schelling extensively. Somehow or other I saved my copy of Alexander George's seminal work "The Limits of Coercive Diplomacy" since updated in a post Cold War release circa mid 1990's.
I dug it out. Judge for yourselves the merits of the unilateralist "regime change" approach of the ChickenHawks.
In brief summary, the central task of coercive diplomacy is to “create in the opponent the expectation of costs of sufficient magnitude to erode his motivation to continue what he is doing.”. Clear communication and inducements are both critical in helping to convey that message.
349. jexster - 9/16/2002 3:34:14 PM
350. jexster - 9/16/2002 4:01:09 PM
"the urge tp take preventive action- to do something, anything- can lead to ill-considered policies that lack any strategic sense" Stedman, S (1995) "Alchemy for a New World Order" Foreign Policy
351. concerned - 9/16/2002 5:30:42 PM
337 - 350
all jexster, all the time.
352. jexster - 9/16/2002 6:21:26 PM
Yeah you right.
353. jexster - 9/16/2002 6:42:06 PM
Saddam goes mano a moron and KICKS ASS!
NO WAR ASSHOLES!
Iraq agrees to unconditional inspector return.
354. betty - 9/16/2002 6:48:21 PM
toys?
355. jexster - 9/16/2002 6:50:00 PM
Avoiding war
2307 The fifth commandment forbids the intentional destruction of human life. Because of the evils and injustices that accompany all war, the Church insistently urges everyone to prayer and to action so that the divine Goodness may free us from the ancient bondage of war.104
2308 All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war.
However, "as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed."105
2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:
- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
- there must be serious prospects of success;
- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
356. betty - 9/16/2002 6:50:33 PM
357. joezan - 9/16/2002 7:04:21 PM
HAHAHAHAHA!
Man, only jexster could make Iraq's humiliation into some sort of right-wing loss.
Face it, dirtbag - Bush snookered these s.o.b.s, called Saddam's bluff...called Kofi's bluff...called Schroeder's bluff...called your bluff, and made you all look the fools you are.
358. joezan - 9/16/2002 7:08:10 PM
Annan credited Bush late Monday.
"I believe the president's speech galvanized the international community," Annan said.
359. Edmund Dantes - 9/16/2002 7:24:32 PM
NO WAR ASSHOLES!
Read your own posts sometime, Jasper. To wit:
"The central task of coercive diplomacy is to 'create in the opponent the expectation of costs of sufficient magnitude to erode his motivation to continue what he is doing.'"
I think we've just seen textbook coercive diplomacy. Of course Saddam is going to shake, bake, rattle, and roll when the rubber hits the road, but mark the first set down as firmly in the big Dubya's column.
360. joezan - 9/16/2002 7:46:44 PM
George W. Bush, Statesman.
Got a certain ring to it, don't it?
361. jexster - 9/16/2002 7:58:06 PM
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Iraq agreed on Monday to allow the unconditional return of U.N. arms inspectors amid an intense lobbying campaign by Washington which was backed up by the threat of U.S.-led military action.
Reuters Photo
Reuters
Slideshow: Iraq and Saddam Hussein
Bush Continues Urging U.N. on Iraq
(AP Video)
Security Council To Pressure Iraq
(Reuters)
Expanded Business Section!
Check new areas for:
Economy, Earnings, Markets and more...
Business News
"I can confirm to you that I have received a letter from the Iraqi authorities conveying their decision to allow the return of the inspectors without conditions," U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan ( news - web sites) told reporters after receiving a letter from Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri.
"We reached satisfactory results and there is good news," Sabri told reporters after handing the letter over. "The secretary-general ... will announce the good news to you."
362. jexster - 9/16/2002 8:00:07 PM
Thank James Baker, Chuck Hagel, Anthony Zinni, PantyWaist Powell, and above all Jacques Chrirac, Hosni Mubarak, and Tony Blair...
But wait....we haven't heard from the REAL power - the Likud, Liberty Univ and the Weakly Standard...
hold on...
363. jexster - 9/16/2002 8:02:11 PM
The Moron King's at a loss for words (and a pretext for the pigshit)
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House reacted skeptically on Monday to an Iraqi offer to allow the unconditional return of U.N. weapons inspectors and said it would maintain its efforts to seek Iraqi disarmament through the U.N. Security Council.
Expanded Business Section!
Check new areas for:
Economy, Earnings, Markets and more...
Business News
"We've made it very clear that we are not in the business of negotiating with Saddam Hussein ( news - web sites)," said White House communications director Dan Bartlett. "We are working with the U.N. Security Council to determine the most effective way to reach our goal
364. jexster - 9/16/2002 8:02:54 PM
Scott Ritter - Man of the Year & Congressional Medal of Freedom!
365. jexster - 9/16/2002 8:03:59 PM
Saddam just gave GWB a fuckin wedgie!
366. jexster - 9/16/2002 10:09:09 PM
CNN BREAKING NEWS
"SADDAM CALLS BUSH BLUFF
Eat shit.
Don't send a Moron to do a Clinton job
367. Al D - 9/16/2002 11:06:52 PM
I am not one who has been beating the war drums, but nothing jexster has to say would sway me. Of course, I have given up reading any of his posts longer than 2 or 3 lines. I would like to read on the Mote some rational thoughts on both sides of the case. What are the options in dealing with Hussain? Would containment such as we used with USSR, ie., MAD work with Iraq? My fear with that would be that the threat Saddam poses is not direct but indirect. While OBL wanted to bring his forces to rescue Kuait does not insure that he and his henchmen would not accept Saddam's weapons and act as delivery men.
368. OhioSTOPAS - 9/17/2002 6:13:49 AM
Iraq's offer to permit UN inspections is good news. While it remains to be seen how meaningful the inspections will be, Bush's war talk is achieving positive results.
I hope that the statements of displeasure from the White House are only made to keep the pressure on, and not what the administration actually believes. ("The crafty bastard thinks he'll avoid an invasion by AGREEING TO OUR DEMANDS? We're not falling for that!")
369. Edmund Dantes - 9/17/2002 7:34:25 AM
I hope Jasper's hysteria in reaction to Iraq's capitulation have removed any lingering doubts as to whether he's as mad as a tea party in a cuckoo's nest.
370. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/17/2002 9:37:39 AM
Well, at least he isn't a witless hairsplitting bore. 
371. Edmund Dantes - 9/17/2002 10:03:53 AM
> witless hairsplitting bore
Both you and he qualify on two of the three.
372. jexster - 9/17/2002 10:05:23 AM
Bush says its all a ploy....
speaking of ploys MORON
373. Edmund Dantes - 9/17/2002 10:05:29 AM
And to say "at least he's not" is hair-splitting, so that checks off the third as well.
374. jexster - 9/17/2002 10:10:06 AM
the letter only deals with Weapons Inspectors we have to talk about those "other" resolutions
Pigshit, pretext
Well Spike if you wanna go murder Saddam you Israelites go do it...
You are good aT murder
375. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/17/2002 10:10:19 AM
Go chase an ambulance, weasel!
376. jexster - 9/17/2002 10:12:46 AM
"we we're really serious about WMD inspections, we have our marching orders from RP's Likud boys"
Pigshit: "Where's my next pretext?"
377. Edmund Dantes - 9/17/2002 10:20:31 AM
Pigshit!
Sooooey!!!
378. Edmund Dantes - 9/17/2002 10:22:22 AM
You sure have a purty mouth, Wizzo.
379. jexster - 9/17/2002 10:40:19 AM
Gotta have our war...what would you call it EddieTheEcho?
How bout Bevo Pies
380. jexster - 9/17/2002 10:40:49 AM
and the right word is "potty" mouth
381. jexster - 9/17/2002 10:42:16 AM
And the best word for this?
I think the quote in Message # 292 is reason enough to go to war on Saddam and murder him.
Why how bout MURDER!
382. jexster - 9/17/2002 10:44:59 AM
A story in last week's Times may shed light on that question [of pigshit & pretext and wag the dogshit] It concerned another company that sold a division, then declared that its employees had "resigned," allowing it to confiscate their pensions. Yet this company did exactly the opposite when its former C.E.O. resigned, changing the terms of his contract so that he could claim full retirement benefits; the company took an $8.5 million charge against earnings to reflect the cost of its parting gift to this one individual. Only the little people get shafted.
The other company is named Halliburton. The object of its generosity was Dick Cheney. Krugman, NyT
383. jexster - 9/17/2002 10:50:52 AM
International Security:Changing Targets", Freedman (1998),Foreign Poliy, Spring, 1998 384. jexster - 9/17/2002 10:51:14 AM We're past all that, jex. 385. jexster - 9/17/2002 10:52:29 AM
"[Axis of Evil BevoShit] can also encourage practitioners to emphasize the unprincipled character of opponents. Selling the "threat" may involve demonizing local political forces and the ideologies they represent. This tactic may produce rationales that work well as morality plays but are less than helpful in preparing interventionist forces for complex and multifaceted situations"
They came to the other side of the sea, to the country of the Gerasenes. 2And when he had stepped out of the boat, immediately a man out of the tombs with an unclean spirit met him. 3He lived among the tombs; and no one could restrain him any more, even with a chain; 4for he had often been restrained with shackles and chains, but the chains he wrenched apart, and the shackles he broke in pieces; and no one had the strength to subdue him. 5Night and day among the tombs and on the mountains he was always howling and bruising himself with stones. 6When he saw Jesus from a distance, he ran and bowed down before him; 7and he shouted at the top of his voice, ‘What have you to do with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I adjure you by God, do not torment me.’ 8For he had said to him, ‘Come out of the man, you unclean spirit!’ 9Then Jesus asked him, ‘What is your name?’ He replied, ‘My name is Legion; for we are many.’ 10He begged him earnestly not to send them out of the country. 11Now there on the hillside a great herd of swine was feeding; 12and the unclean spirits begged him, ‘Send us into the swine; let us enter them.’ 13So he gave them permission. And the unclean spirits came out and entered the swine; and the herd, numbering about two thousand, rushed down the steep bank into the sea, and were drowned in the sea.
Get yer head out of the sand - the gauntlet has been thrown down
Word UP
PIGSHIT
Now boys Our WarLord is in it deep thanks to the RATFUCK SAD - aM so let's go out there and put some lipstick on this pig
386. jexster - 9/17/2002 10:57:19 AM
"This is not a matter of inspections," the White House said in a statement.
387. jexster - 9/17/2002 11:03:17 AM
Now ask yourselves "what might the White Palace have said if they REALLY were serious about inspections but doubted Sad - am?"
How bout
"We welcome the overwhelming response of our Arab and Euro friends in helping to restore the integrity of the UN and bring an end to the WMD threat in EyeRak. Given his track record however, we must insist on coercive inspections as James Baker recommended"
And go on in private to detail coercive inspection program along the lines that the Carnegie Endowment suggests.
That's if they REALLY were concerned about WMD which, as I have said repeatedly, is not the case at all....
388. jexster - 9/17/2002 11:39:20 AM
389. jexster - 9/17/2002 1:43:03 PM
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - With Secretary of State Colin Powell ( news - web sites) at his side, Russia's foreign minister said on Tuesday that no new U.N. Security Council resolution was needed following Iraq's offer to allow in weapons inspectors.
390. jexster - 9/17/2002 1:45:41 PM
CNN: Congressional sources are telling CNN that the Bush administration KNEW before 9-1-1 a great deal more about the threat to the US than it told the American people....
Am I surprised?
Are YOU surprised Zster?
391. Al D - 9/17/2002 2:50:38 PM
Edmond
At least he is now posting cartoons with some content, not just silly pictures on the level of a 9 year old.
If Saddam stalls and the U.N. abets him in his stalling tactics, the end result might be a serious movement within the U.S. to label the U.N. an inefective debating society and threaten to withdraw.
392. joezan - 9/17/2002 2:52:56 PM
Geez, Al - PLEASE don't give Jex any more conspiracy theories to imagine.
393. PelleNilsson - 9/17/2002 3:32:44 PM
If Saddam stalls and the U.N. abets him in his stalling tactics, the end result might be a serious movement within the U.S. to label the U.N. an inefective debating society and threaten to withdraw.
I have little hope to be able to penetrate petrified minds, but it needs to be said. The UN as such has nothing to do with current events. It provides the office space, that's all.
394. concerned - 9/17/2002 3:33:57 PM
Turns out that Iraq's 'unconditional' arms inspection offer is anything but. The 'offer' applies only to 'military installations' which obviously leaves out Saddam's palaces and all other governmental and private (if there is really such a thing in Iraq) sites where WMDs can be stored, and probably will be, given the well known cowardly Islamic propensity to use their women and children as human shields.
Additionally, since the 'unconditional' offer is clearly a farce, on the face of it, Saddam will be left free to hamstring it further with all manner of further qualifications calculated only to make his dictatorship look good while stymieing any effective weapons inspections. In short, Saddam's 'offer' is little but a public relations ploy.
395. jexster - 9/17/2002 3:40:26 PM
Fuck that gimme a fucking break if you think its a "ploy" call his bluff fer chrissakes but don't give me that crap...
the shit is gettin REAL deep...
396. jexster - 9/17/2002 3:42:42 PM
You go peddle that crap to some half wit TD..not me...
How about some HONESTY from you cum stained dress crackpots...just say what you REALLY mean and not tell us about WMD's UN Resolutions, nuclear bombs under Ronski's bed, big threats from Irak...
what a manifest crock!
397. jexster - 9/17/2002 3:48:07 PM
Sharon's plan is to drive Palestinians across the Jordan
(Filed: 28/04/2002)
THE leading Israeli historian Martin van Creveld predicts that a US attack on Iraq or a terrorist strike at home could trigger a massive mobilisation to clear the occupied territories of their two million Arabs
Sharon plans to annex half the West Bank, says coalition ally
By Inigo Gilmore in Jerusalem and David Wastell in Washington
TD - you are a corn pone crackpot if ever one there was...take that pathetic spin back to the boonies where you MIGHT find someone who will belive it!
398. jexster - 9/17/2002 3:50:20 PM
There isn't much nice I have to say about Freeper.com but at least, from my experience, they are honest on this point..some of 'em at any rate...
My most recent foray produced more than one defender of the War to Make Bush Believable who right up front admitted to naked aggression and imperialist murder..the only one around here to be honest is Rustler
399. concerned - 9/17/2002 3:51:02 PM
jexster -
Better have your meds adjusted. You neglected to indicate what the latter part of your post is in reference to.
400. concerned - 9/17/2002 3:53:20 PM
I meant what I posted, no more and no less. Saddam is showing that he is completely untrustworthy - his offer should never have included the term 'unconditional' since that is a total misrepresentation of what he is actually offering, and I pointed out why this is the case.
401. jexster - 9/17/2002 4:03:17 PM
You pointed out NOTHING....what you pointed out was how flimsy the pretext of last Thursday's big speech really was; what REAL agenda is and always has been, and incredibly stupid you are.
Usually your shit is at least good for a laugh..
You fell short of your low standard... 
402. jexster - 9/17/2002 4:05:28 PM
reprint from AP thread...TDaschole you have underdone yourself
Now ask yourselves "what might the White Palace have said if they REALLY were serious about inspections but doubted Sad - am?"
How bout
"We welcome the overwhelming response of our Arab and Euro friends in helping to restore the integrity of the UN and bring an end to the WMD threat in EyeRak. Given his track record however, we must insist on coercive inspections as James Baker recommended"
And go on in private to detail coercive inspection program along the lines that the Carnegie Endowment suggests.
That's if they REALLY were concerned about WMD which, as I have said repeatedly, is not the case at all....
403. jexster - 9/17/2002 4:06:30 PM
Dishonest little twit that's all you are now..used to be a dishonest little clown...
404. PelleNilsson - 9/17/2002 4:06:50 PM
This should be in Promoting the Mote but don't we have the most impressive freak show on the net? -- jex&con -- nightly performances --¨free of charge -- outrageous performances for your stunned amusement -- yes it's really true! -- but only in the Mote!
405. jexster - 9/17/2002 4:10:22 PM
Don't be surprised if there is at least 1 veto out of France, Russia, China
Hans Blix is on his way to Baghdad to discuss details of the UNCONDITIONAL OFFER..
406. jexster - 9/17/2002 4:11:12 PM
Air Patrols Shift Targets in Iraq, Clearing the Way for Any Attack
By ERIC SCHMITT
American and British warplanes patrolling Iraq's no-flight zones have over the last two months shifted tactics to bombing major air defense sites in those areas.
407. concerned - 9/17/2002 4:16:07 PM
FWIW -
I'd prefer to see Saddam taken down by indigenous agencies rather than having the US go do it. But it seems quite unlikely that this'll happen. Jexster seems to be totally unconcerned about the damage this dictator has wreaked on his own people and his neighbors in the past, not to mention his support of international terrorism and any future threat, including nuclear, he may pose.
408. concerned - 9/17/2002 4:17:35 PM
Pelle -
Then there's you, devotee of mean little swipes.
409. jexster - 9/17/2002 4:22:50 PM
I have had it with your bigoted bullshit TD, and now you are liar to boot:
Dear Secretary-General,
I have the honor to refer to the series of discussions held between Your Excellency and the Government of the Republic of Iraq on the implementation of relevant Security Council resolutions on the question of Iraq which took place in New York on 7 March and 2 May and in Vienna on 4 July 2002, as well as the talks which were held in your office in New York on 14 and 15 September 2002, with the participation of the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States.
I am pleased to inform you of the decision of the Government of the Republic of Iraq to allow the return of the United Nations ( news - web sites) weapons inspectors to Iraq without conditions.
The Government of the Republic of Iraq has responded, by this decision, to your appeal, to the appeal of the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States, as well as those of Arab, Islamic and other friendly countries.
The Government of the Republic of Iraq has based its decision concerning the return of inspectors on its desire to complete the implementation of the relevant Security Council resolutions and to remove any doubts that Iraq still possesses weapons of mass destruction. This decision is also based on your statement to the General Assembly on 12 September 2002 that the decision by the Government of the Republic of Iraq is the indispensable first step towards an assurance that Iraq no longer possesses weapons of mass destruction and, equally importantly, towards a comprehensive solution that includes the lifting of sanctions imposed in Iraq and the timely implementation of other provisions of the relevant Security Council resolutions, including resolution 687(1991). T this end, the Government of the Republic of Iraq is ready to discuss the practical arrangements necessary for the immediate resumption of inspections.
410. jexster - 9/17/2002 4:22:55 PM
In this context, the Government of the Republic of Iraq reiterates the importance of the commitment of all Member States of the Security Council and the United Nations to respect the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Iraq, as stipulated in the relevant Security Council resolutions and article (II) of the Charter of the United Nations.
I would be grateful if you would bring this letter to the attention of the Security Council members.
Please accept, Mr. Secretary-General the assurances of my highest consideration.
Dr. Naji Sabri
Minister of Foreign Affairs
Republic of Iraq
411. concerned - 9/17/2002 4:23:52 PM
I think there is very little that Pelle could point to that I have posted regarding Iraq which any reasonable person could object to.
412. jexster - 9/17/2002 4:24:06 PM
TD is making up shit that even BUSH hasn't got the chutzpah to invent
413. concerned - 9/17/2002 4:26:48 PM
I am pleased to inform you of the decision of the Government of the Republic of Iraq to allow the return of the United Nations ( news - web sites) weapons inspectors to Iraq without conditions.
This letter merely says that weapons inspectors will be allowed to return to Iraq. It says nothing specific about whether they will be allowed to perform inspections, or where, of course.
414. concerned - 9/17/2002 4:31:44 PM
The letter says Iraq is only ready to 'discuss' the resumption of inspections. That's a long way from allowing the unconditional inspections that Iraq claims it is offering.
I can see that the right apple polisher would have no trouble at all shining little Jexie on.
415. ronski - 9/17/2002 4:34:18 PM
It must be pointed out here that Iraq has not agreed unconditionally to let inspectors back into the country.
They have agreed to talk about letting inspectors back in unconditionally, except that their letter also said they wanted to talk about lifting sanctions, which sounds a bit like a condition in and of itself.
But it may simply be impossible for any inspectors, under any conditions or lack thereof, to assure that there has been total (or near total) compliance with the UN orders to destroy WMD, since the Iraqis have had years to hide things.
It is one thing for a party acting in good faith to invite inspectors in to prove that they have obeyed such an order, and another for a lying psycho to do so, and so I have little doubt that there will be war.
As for Al's question about containing Iraq, vis a vis the Soviets, the policy with the latter was based on MAD. It does not make sense to the Bush Administration to wait until Iraq gets to even the tiniest fraction of the nuclear strength of the USSR. Especially since there remains the fear of nukes and other WMDs being smuggled out of Iraq and into the U.S., or stolen or lost and falling into al Qaeda's hands. (Pakistan and the former USSR present enough of a problem with nukes.)
No doubt there are other reasons to dump Saddam, and we all know what they are. Oil, which has guided U.S. and British foreign policy for a very long time, and another reason: the attractiveness of a West-friendly, democratic state in the middle of all those authoritarian, unfriendly or untrustworthy regimes.
But the best-laid plans do gang aft agley.
416. ronski - 9/17/2002 4:38:32 PM
Key words: "ready to discuss the practical arrangements."
417. concerned - 9/17/2002 4:39:01 PM
Access to oil is not a significant justification to dump Saddam. Iraq, at most, would produce 2-3% of the world's oil in a competitive market. Even SA produces only about 10%, as a comparison.
418. ronski - 9/17/2002 4:41:28 PM
concerned,
Think new pipelines, in the region. It is not just a question of Iraq, but Iraq's relationship with and proximity to other oil-producing states, especially to the north.
419. Edmund Dantes - 9/17/2002 4:44:48 PM
It must be pointed out here that Iraq has not agreed unconditionally to let inspectors back into the country.
It provides a fig leaf, however, for those who never wanted any pressure on Iraq to begin with. There's not much difference in veracity between Iraq's promise it has no weapons of mass destruction and Iraq's promise to allow unimpeded inspections. That is, those who accept the former at face value are the same rubes who will accept--or even gleefully latch onto--the latter.
420. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/17/2002 4:45:57 PM
421. concerned - 9/17/2002 5:30:39 PM
Saddam can be likened to Lucy teeing a football to Jexster's Charlie Brown.
422. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/17/2002 5:48:06 PM
From an observant poster in TT:
"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind.... And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded with patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader, and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar."
[From William Shakespeare's Julius Caesar]
423. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/17/2002 5:48:37 PM
Toys
424. Edmund Dantes - 9/17/2002 5:51:45 PM
The coach didn't issue Jasper the new playbook:
The debate in Congress over whether to support military action in Iraq won't be derailed by Saddam Hussein's decision to allow United Nations weapons inspectors to return, with a vote on an Iraq resolution coming "well before the election," Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle said Tuesday.
Daschle and other congressional leaders planned to meet with President Bush at the White House Wednesday morning to discuss what the Iraq resolution should say.
"We've got to put pressure upon the Iraqis not only to open their borders, but to destroy their weapons," said Daschle, D-S.D.
AP
425. Edmund Dantes - 9/17/2002 6:01:31 PM
Wizzo, I think you've been pantsed.
Patriotism, I suspect, is too new a word to have been used by Shakespeare. Loyalty to a monarch is seldom referred to as patriotism; you need a nation-state for that.
Moreover, the clangy cliches and mixed metaphors ("drums of war", "fever pitch", "double-edged sword") don't sound like Shakespeare to me.
426. Edmund Dantes - 9/17/2002 6:02:45 PM
Perhaps your "observant" poster on TT provided Act, Scene, and Line numbers?
427. concerned - 9/17/2002 6:43:31 PM
428. jexster - 9/17/2002 6:51:15 PM
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - U.N. weapons inspectors and Iraq's top arms experts agreed on Tuesday to meet in 10 days in Vienna on practical arrangements for the return of the inspectors, an Iraqi official announced.
Reuters Photo
AP Photo
Slideshow: Iraq and Saddam Hussein
U.S. Decries Iraq Inspections Offer
(AP Video)
China Welcomes Iraqi Decision
(AP Video)
European MPs Seek Peaceful Solution To Iraq Crisis
(Reuters Video)
Expanded Business Section!
Check new areas for:
Economy, Earnings, Markets and more...
Business News
The two sides met briefly at U.N. headquarters in what Iraqi officials called "preliminary talks" to discuss logistic issues on offices, flights, escorts and other planning, according to Saeed Hasan, an Iraqi Foreign Ministry diplomat and his country's former U.N. ambassador.
The United States, which wants a "regime change" in Baghdad, has threatened military action and is pressing the 15-member U.N. Security Council to give arms inspectors new and stronger powers before they return to Baghdad.
No I love the TRUTH...and the truth is that when Bush said he did give a rat's ass about inspections he wanted a regime change he meant it..
"Beware being tricked by Iraq" is just another way of saying in answer to his question BUSH's demand last week, that IRAQ UNCONDITIONALLY accept UN Resolution 687, Bush is afraid of YES for an answer
So TD can spin all he wants to....he isn't fooling anyone and worse he isn't being honest - not honest with himself
not honest with YOU
429. jexster - 9/17/2002 6:53:30 PM
Bush cannot justify this war ...this war is illegitimate, this war is therefore murder and everyone who dies in it be they combatant, be they civilian, Iraqi or other..will have been each murdered by Bush
and TD and his ilk will have blood on their hands
430. jexster - 9/17/2002 6:58:08 PM
Richard Perle said it...."This is a war to make Bush believable"
Its not about AlQaeda
Its not about Ay-rabs
Its not about Islamist extremism
Its not about Iraqi threats to neighbor
Its not about Iraqi threats to the US homeland
Its not about the integrity of the UN
Its about George W.
Immanuel Wallerstein was right folks...dead fuckin right
431. jexster - 9/17/2002 6:59:58 PM
Why Bush will go to war on Iraq 432. jexster - 9/17/2002 7:00:15 PM
By Immanuel Wallerstein
April 19 2002
George Bush is a geopolitical incompetent. He has allowed a clique of hawks to induce him to take a position on invading Iraq from which he cannot extract himself, one that will have nothing but negative consequences for the United States - and the rest of the world. He will find himself badly hurt politically, perhaps fatally. And he will rapidly diminish the already declining power of the US in the world.
A war against Iraq will destroy many lives immediately, both Iraqi and American.
Invading Iraq will lead to a degree of turmoil in the Arab-Islamic world hitherto unimagined. Other Arab leaders don't like Saddam Hussein one bit, but their populations won't stand for what they will inevitably feel is an unprovoked attack on an Arab state, leaving leaders with little choice but to be swept along in the turmoil or drown.
Defying UN resolutions or other international decrees has been commonplace for the past 50 years. The US refused to defer to a 1986 World Court decision condemning US actions in Nicaragua. And Bush has made amply clear he will not honour any treaty should he think it dangerous to US interests. Israel has, of course, been defying UN resolutions for more than 30 years, and is doing so again as I write. And the record of other UN members is not much better. So Saddam has been defying quite explicit UN resolutions. What's new?
US hawks believe that only the use of force - very significant force - will restore America's unquestioned hegemony in the world. It is no doubt true that the use of overwhelming force can establish hegemony, as happened with the US in 1945. But US hegemony is not what it once was.
Bush's incredibly high approval ratings reflect his being a "war president". The minute he becomes a peace-time president, he will be in grave trouble - all the more so because of failed wartime promises.
So, Bush has no choice. He will invade Iraq. He has made clear the Middle East crisis will not deter him from this. Quite the opposite. And we shall all live with the consequences.
433. jexster - 9/17/2002 7:00:42 PM
Wag the fuckin dog all ya want.
Stop pullin my dick.
434. jexster - 9/17/2002 7:11:52 PM
I have... chosen this time and this place to discuss a topic on which
ignorance too often abounds and the truth is too rarely perceived - yet it is the most important topic on earth: world peace. What kind of peace do I mean? What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth
living, the kind that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their children -not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women, not merely peace in our time but peace for all time... The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war." John F. Kennedy
GWB is, even this very moment, giving lie to those words
Welcome to the peace of the grave, the security of the slave.....
FUCK YOU TD
435. joezan - 9/17/2002 7:20:14 PM
From the Evening Standard link above:
...But today it emerged that the offer only applied to military bases - which could let Saddam hide chemical and biological arms stockpiles elsewhere.
The disclosure that restrictions were, after all, attached to Saddam's offer was made by the London ambassador of the Arab League which brokered the deal in the first place.
Ali Muhsen Hamid claimed Iraq was being sincere, but he stipulated that civilian sites would not be available to the inspectors. "We support anywhere, any military site (for inspections), but not as some people have suggested for inspections against hospitals, against schools."
Hospitals are among key sites for inspections because of evidence that Saddam uses health laboratories to manufacture viruses for biological weapons.
Now, what is so hard to understand about any military site...but not as some people have suggested for inspections against hospitals, against schools.
Do you see any ambiguity here, jasper.
Does this read as "unconditional" to your fevered mind?
436. joezan - 9/17/2002 7:30:49 PM
..add question marks where appropriate, jasper.
437. joezan - 9/17/2002 7:32:17 PM
We want peace in our time too, jasper - just like JFK --- but we want it on our terms.
438. jexster - 9/17/2002 9:05:03 PM
Peace of the Grave, Security of the Slave, Morality of the Depraved
First he stole your franchise, now he's stealing your birthright...
Toronto Sun: Latest Bush Lie Exposed
Widening the non-war: Rumsfeld adds targets in 'no fly' enforcement [Boston Globe
'Bush now has to refuse to take yes for an answer'[Toronto Star]
m>MURDER for Profit
Looking for 2/3 of US to Support Him - Bloody Boy Blunder Fails (NyT)
BEFORE He was Appointed Resident, a Right-Wing Think Tank Gave Bush a Blueprint for Iraq 'Regime Change' and 'Global Pax Americana'; China also Spotlighted for 'Regime Change'
Bush Pistol Whips the UN over Iraq, While Taking Aim at Congress [Mary McGrory]
Karl Rove's Grand Strategery - mary McGrory
439. jexster - 9/17/2002 9:06:30 PM
Once "Concerned" used to be a bloody bigot and clown
Now he's just a fuckin bloody bigot.
440. jexster - 9/17/2002 9:07:02 PM
The least we should demand is a bloody bigot with brains
441. jexster - 9/17/2002 9:25:39 PM
From the Center for Defense and the National Interest, a website of Pentagon and CIA strategic planners...
September 14, 2002
Comment:: #458
Werther Report II - GWB & The War Scare 2002: Baking the Scary Soufflé Betty Crocker Style
III. The Men From JINSA And CSP
"Almost thirty years ago, a prominent group of neoconservative hawks found an effective vehicle for advocating their views via the Committee on the Present Danger, a group that fervently believed the United States was a hair away from being militarily surpassed by the Soviet Union, and whose raison d'être was strident advocacy of bigger military budgets, near-fanatical opposition to any form of arms control and zealous championing of a Likudnik Israel. Considered a marginal group in its nascent days during the Carter Administration, with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 CPD went from the margins to the center of power.
Just as the right-wing defense intellectuals made CPD a cornerstone of a shadow defense establishment during the Carter Administration, so, too, did the right during the Clinton years, in part through two organizations: the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) and the Center for Security Policy (CSP). And just as was the case two decades ago, dozens of their members have ascended to powerful government posts, where their advocacy in support of the same agenda continues, abetted by the out-of-government adjuncts from which they came. .
442. jexster - 9/17/2002 9:27:30 PM
PLEASE don't give Jex any more conspiracy theories to imagine
Name ONE cracker.
443. jexster - 9/17/2002 9:28:44 PM
If this is a conspiracy, fuck it isn't much of one...since I have been correct from the fuckin beginning...
Now go get your gasmask on freak...meet Jaysus in the air..
Bloody fuck
444. jexster - 9/17/2002 10:06:53 PM
And WHO is Martin van Creveld that ole Jexie refered to in Message # 397...Jexie claims he is the leading authority on Israeli Military history...Jexie says he's an Israeli...I bet he's some "conspiracy theorist"
And you probably believe this a war about WMD or whatever the pretext du jour is...
YOu'd be wrong..you'd be like TD...
Wake the fuck up!
1 The Transformation of War -- by Martin L. Van Creveld, et al
2. The Sword and the Olive: A Critical History of the Israeli Defense Force -- by Martin Van Creveld
3. The Rise and Decline of the State
by Martin van Creveld
4.Technology and War: From 2000 B.C. to the Present
by Martin van Creveld,
5. Men, Women & War
by Martin Van Creveld, Martin L. Van Creveld (Hardcover - May 2002)
6 The Art of War: War and Military Thought (History of Warfare)
by Martin Van Creveld, John Keegan (Editor)
445. jexster - 9/17/2002 10:10:52 PM
Following a week-long fast by Catholic activists in Cleveland, the US Catholic Bishops declared their opposition to Bush's invasion of Iraq. Bishop Wilton D. Gregory of Belleville, Ill., president of the U.S. bishops' conference said the "Catechism of the Catholic Church" limits the just-war criterion of "just cause" to "cases in which the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations is lasting, grave and certain." He said the moral credibility of force depends on legitimate authority and, as such, "decisions of such gravity require compliance with U.S. constitutional imperatives, broad consensus within our own nation, and some form of international sanction, preferably by the U.N. Security Council." We congratulate the Bishops for taking a stand on the most important moral issue facing the nation this fall. Now where are all the "pro-life" Catholics like Henry Hyde and Rick Santorum?
US Catholic Bishops Oppose Bush's Invasion of Iraq
446. jexster - 9/17/2002 10:14:06 PM
Every death Zan...every Iraqi, ever US soldier, every Israeli....
is a murder
How many deaths make an ordinary murderer a mass murderer?
Now share with us if you will your views on aborting a six celled fetus
447. joezan - 9/17/2002 10:15:57 PM
Well, good jasper - then I will personally recommend to Krusty and Da Moron that Bishop Gregory not be required to fight in Iraq.
Prof. Osman, huh?
Sounds like an Ayrab - no wonder you're licking his butt.
448. Edmund Dantes - 9/17/2002 10:18:09 PM
six celled fetus
No such thing, Jasper. First, they divide, so it would be four-celled or eight-celled--not six. Second, it's called an embryo at that stage, not a fetus.
Don't you have some homework to do?
You know how you get a brown nose?
From sniffing a poopstain!
449. jexster - 9/17/2002 10:23:20 PM
Boy Eddie, you got me there...
Fuckin mental giant you are?
Say you wouldn't happen to know the lunatic Ace of Waste would ya?
450. Edmund Dantes - 9/17/2002 10:23:40 PM
It's not about the meds.
It's not about the viral load.
It's not about eating runny shit.
It's not about being a shut-in perpetual student.
It's not about posting nonstop more than everyone else on the Mote put together.
It's about Jasper's unrequited love for the Big Dubya.
Obsession...smell the madness.
451. jexster - 9/17/2002 10:23:53 PM
Make it for the Ace....
I'll make the Ace my dessert
452. jexster - 9/17/2002 10:24:55 PM
The Presiding Bishop's statement on military action against Iraq
Sheesh I thought we were rid of that tired bitch.
Welcome to hell asswipe
453. Edmund Dantes - 9/17/2002 10:31:58 PM
Jumping jehosophat but let me tell you I put the kwanza on some Freeper Da$$holes the other day who was trying to sell that Bushit and Halliburton Cheney pig.
Trouble is they didn't put any lipstick on it!
I have a link here somewhere that references a report my high school statistics teacher did about the lateral trade theory and how it relates to Sun Yat Sen, that old squinty-eyed fucker.
Der Juden will pay, Spike!
Hells bells you forgot tell that skull-fucking Ariel Sharon the word, didn't ya?
454. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/17/2002 11:29:11 PM
Is Miserable, drunk or just extra glum tonight? 
455. jexster - 9/18/2002 2:51:26 AM
UNITED NATIONS (AP) - As U.N. weapons inspectors moved ahead with plans to return to Iraq, the United States and Russia clashed on Tuesday over whether to take Baghdad at its word or impose a new ultimatum. "We have seen this game before," said a skeptical Colin Powell ( news - web sites).
The secretary of state reaffirmed Washington's call for a tough anti-Iraq resolution by the U.N. Security Council, despite Iraq's sudden about-face on inspections.
But Russia's foreign minister said he saw no immediate need for new U.N. demands if the inspectors are quickly dispatched. He was backed up by Arab leaders, Moscow's traditional allies. The "logic of war" may now be replaced by "the logic of peace," said one.
The 15-member Security Council majority decided, despite a U.S. request for more time, to quickly schedule a meeting, possibly Wednesday, with chief weapons inspector Hans Blix to discuss renewed inspections.
Hans Blix stands tall b4 the lofty mast....he ain't even a Dane - fuckin Swede but a damn good man.
456. jexster - 9/18/2002 3:04:30 AM
The events of 9/11 have an obvious and immediate connection to the origin of the pre-emption doctrine.
But why, if that is the case, do proponents of the doctrine show a bored indifference to the hunt for Al Qaeda operatives and focus obsessively on Iraq? Why, indeed, did the criminal actions of a few hundred shadowy terrorists become the impetus for a complete change in U.S. military doctrine - a change that has grand strategic as well as strategic implications?
I think there are two principal causes of this doctrinal change: one immediate and tactical, the other more fundamental.
The doctrine of pre-emption policy did not spring full-blown in President Bush's June speech; it was prefigured in the writings of several Beltway illuminati, such as Ken Adelman, whose last known government service was to preside over a security scandal at the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. More than a month before the President's speech, Adelman wrote that "While 'self-determination' marked the nub of U.S. foreign policy in the 1920s and 1930s, 'unilateral surrender' in the 1940s, and 'containment' in the decades since, 'pre-emption' became our foreign policy guidepost after 9/11." [The Right Questions, Ken Adelman, 25 April 2002]
457. jexster - 9/18/2002 3:06:21 AM
Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy was even more emphatic in his endorsement of pre-emption: "You will in fact see acts of pre-emption. That not only deserves the support of the American people, but commends it," ["Can the U.S. be first to attack enemy?" The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 30 March 2002]. The same article states that former CIA Director R. James Woolsey has also called for pre-emptive action against Iraq.
Predictably, William Kristol and Robert Kagan of the Weekly Standard not only argue for a pre-emptive military attack on Iraq, but charge that administration officials (and particularly the military officers who serve the administration) have been too timid in carrying out such a policy ["Going Wobbly: Is the President Backing Away From Regime Change in Iraq? by William Kristol and Robert Kagan, The Weekly Standard, 3 June 2002].
Cui Bono?
What all these gentlemen have in common, apart from their unrelenting enthusiasm for placing someone else's son in the line of fire, is their passionate support of Israel. Indeed, since Ariel Sharon became prime minister; their writings have brimmed with strident and indignant apologias for Israel. Is it pure coincidence that they persistently advocate the full military might of the United States be unleashed against whichever country - Iraq preeminently, but also Iran and recently Syria and Libya - that Israel happens to dislike? "Let's you and him fight" seems to be the Leitmotiv of these Beltway Sun Tzu's.
DNI Net #453
458. jexster - 9/18/2002 3:17:49 AM
Werther II
Conclusion: A Predatory Elite
Frank Kofsky has performed a useful service by stripping away the accretion of myth that has veiled the opening stage of the cold war. But the pathologies he found in embryo have metastasized.
The crony capitalists who back the current war policy have economic interests wildly at odds with those of the average American citizen. Their operatives in the government no longer bluff about war and pull back from the brink but deliberately plot aggressive war and delight in the attention and power their leaks give them. They have become a reckless, predatory elite.
"Imperialism is a depraved choice of national life, imposed by self-seeking interests which appeal to the lusts of quantitative acquisition and of forceful domination surviving in a nation from early centuries of animal struggle for existence . . . It is the besetting sin of all successful States, and the penalty is unalterable in the order of nature." [11]
The author of that passage, J.A. Hobson, consistent with the views of Gibbon, Spengler, and Toynbee, believed imperialism automatically begets its own penalty, one that is "unalterable in the order of nature." Our elites, who worship something called "American exceptionalism," believe otherwise.
These predatory elites are now rolling dice in a game that risks other people's money and spills other people's blood.
* Werther is the pen name of a Northern Virginia-based defense analyst.
** Kofsky, F. Harry S. Truman and the War Scare of 1948 (Palgrave Macmillan, February 1995).
459. jexster - 9/18/2002 3:28:37 AM
Occam's Razor
one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything
460. jexster - 9/18/2002 3:32:27 AM
461. jexster - 9/18/2002 11:15:37 AM
Although actually I shouldn't be so harsh, some people think Ace & I are if not one in the same, then evil twins separated a birth. 462. Edmund Dantes - 9/18/2002 12:30:07 PM Hey Wizzo, what'd you find out about Caesar? 463. PelleNilsson - 9/18/2002 12:47:10 PM I, too, am sceptical about the alleged Shakespeare cite in Message # 422. 464. joezan - 9/18/2002 12:51:19 PM Wiz' sources are all to be viewed with skepticism. 465. ronski - 9/18/2002 1:00:10 PM The quote is not Shakespeare, and it probably isn't Caesar's either. Not even Sid Caesar's. 466. judithathome - 9/18/2002 1:03:34 PM Eat your words, Jozey. To begin with, Wiz was quoting from a poster in TableTalk but sorry to inform you, the quote is indeed from Julius Ceasar and has been used by people as disparate as Theodore Roosevelt and Adolph Hitler. 467. judithathome - 9/18/2002 1:04:31 PM Ronski, I guess Google and the several sites it cited are all incorrect, then? 468. TabouliJones - 9/18/2002 1:08:32 PM Here is the full text of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar. I tried a "find" within my I.E. browser window on various key words in the quoted passage (patriotism, drums, etc.) and came up empty. So, I don't think that is a quote from Shakespeare's Julius Caesar. 469. judithathome - 9/18/2002 1:13:09 PM Put the first two sentences into Google with quote marks. It will give enough cites to satisfy any of you; you needn't take MY word for it, heaven forbid. 470. judithathome - 9/18/2002 1:14:38 PM I suppose it is possible for Teddy Roosevelt and Adolph Hiter to give incorrect cites in their speeches and mumerous others, too, but judge for yourself. 471. Edmund Dantes - 9/18/2002 1:16:25 PM There are several cites on the Web referring to it as Julius Caesar, some even saying via Shakespeare. But I've searched the text of the play, and it's not in there. 472. joezan - 9/18/2002 1:16:34 PM judith: 473. TabouliJones - 9/18/2002 1:19:21 PM I searched on the opening phrase in yahoo. The quotation in question is, indeed, quoted often, and generally said to be "attributed to Julius Caesar." It doesn't appear to be from Shakespeare's play, however. 474. judithathome - 9/18/2002 1:25:51 PM Joezan, you are such a fool. Yes, I do know how to Google and I never said it was from Shakespeare and NEITHER DID THE QUOTE in Wiz's post. You and Edmund and Pelle and others jumped on the Shakespeare bandwagon. If you could read, you'd see I said "Julius Ceasar" and had I meant the play, I'd have said Julius Ceasar. 475. judithathome - 9/18/2002 1:26:39 PM Thank you, Tabouli. 476. joezan - 9/18/2002 1:31:01 PM If you could read, you'd see I said "Julius Ceasar" and had I meant the play, I'd have said Julius Ceasar. 477. judithathome - 9/18/2002 1:34:48 PM Joezan, don't make a bigger fool of yourself than usual. I know what I meant and what I read...nowhere did it say Shakespeare's Julius Ceasar. 478. judithathome - 9/18/2002 1:36:30 PM And you know damned good and well that had Pseudo or Ace or anyone more in line with your thinking had linked that quote, you wouldn't have one shred of skepticism over it. 479. joezan - 9/18/2002 1:37:16 PM 422. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/17/02 5:48:06 PM 480. Edmund Dantes - 9/18/2002 1:38:10 PM NEITHER DID THE QUOTE in Wiz's post. 481. joezan - 9/18/2002 1:38:11 PM arf! 482. judithathome - 9/18/2002 1:40:09 PM Fine. The other cites said only Julius Ceasar and so did I. 483. judithathome - 9/18/2002 1:41:52 PM Oh yeah, I can admit I was wrong but I see it is more fun for you guys to act like I'm the biggest fool around here so have your fun, guys, You deserve each other. 484. Edmund Dantes - 9/18/2002 1:42:17 PM Did you even go back to the original post Wiz made? I did... 485. Edmund Dantes - 9/18/2002 1:43:23 PM What makes it so much fun is that you "geniuses" are always raising a shitstorm about the President's alleged gaffes. 486. judithathome - 9/18/2002 1:44:55 PM Where did Caesar say it? Not secondary sources. Where did he say it? 487. joezan - 9/18/2002 1:45:53 PM I stand by the rest of my posts, however. 488. judithathome - 9/18/2002 1:49:26 PM Joezan, you are the host of this thread and it seems to be your intention to have only those who agree with you on it. That is fine but it doesn't make for much discussion. Since you've set that standard, I hope you enjoy haivng a gang of parrots around because that's all you'll end up with. 489. joezan - 9/18/2002 1:51:41 PM ...an observant poster in TT: 490. Edmund Dantes - 9/18/2002 1:53:23 PM it seems to be your intention to have only those who agree with you on it 491. judithathome - 9/18/2002 1:54:41 PM I don't give a fig what you do on this thread. 492. jexster - 9/18/2002 2:01:55 PM Understanding the Predatory Elite...don't take my word for it...take theirs. 493. jexster - 9/18/2002 2:02:36 PM Always nice to know that SOMEONE cares eh Eddie? 494. jexster - 9/18/2002 2:06:02 PM We care a lot 495. jexster - 9/18/2002 2:17:31 PM Bluff Called: 496. PelleNilsson - 9/18/2002 2:21:53 PM A final word on the now infamous quote. 497. Edmund Dantes - 9/18/2002 2:22:26 PM Now if I could only post a pixelated jpeg of the graph... 498. ronski - 9/18/2002 2:26:05 PM I think it very, if uncharacteristically, fair of jexster to provide us with a source which includes a sublink to Democrats for Regime Change (who are not to be confused with the "Draft Hillary 2004 Committee"). 499. PelleNilsson - 9/18/2002 2:27:37 PM I'm surprised that the US did not anticipate Iraq's move (which was not at all surprising) and did not have a pre-packed strategy to deal with it. 500. PelleNilsson - 9/18/2002 2:32:38 PM What's your problem Edmund? 501. Edmund Dantes - 9/18/2002 2:37:44 PM The U.S. strategy remains the same. We'll work within the UN as long as the UN does its job; if not, we'll take matters into our own hands. 502. Edmund Dantes - 9/18/2002 2:38:53 PM (And if you could trust his word that he has no weapons, you wouldn't need inspectors.) 503. Edmund Dantes - 9/18/2002 2:40:29 PM That's not how you post a graph, Jasper style. 504. PelleNilsson - 9/18/2002 3:18:33 PM Edmund 505. Cellar Door - 9/18/2002 3:27:40 PM Cellar's new bumpersticker suggestion: 506. ronski - 9/18/2002 3:31:25 PM What, I don't get any credit for that one? 507. Edmund Dantes - 9/18/2002 3:52:02 PM Not sure what you mean, Pelle. UN in this context equals permanent members of the Security Council. 508. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/18/2002 4:03:10 PM His Miserableness, the quintessential quibbler, strikes again! 509. judithathome - 9/18/2002 4:08:23 PM Pelle: Please read this quote which I have pasted from a list of different people who have used it: 510. judithathome - 9/18/2002 4:11:34 PM This is site: 511. judithathome - 9/18/2002 4:15:00 PM And to correct what I described as a page on which was listed people who have used the quote, that was incorrect. That page is the instance in which Hitler used it; I can provide the Roosevelt page if you insist. 512. PelleNilsson - 9/18/2002 4:15:35 PM Edmund 513. Edmund Dantes - 9/18/2002 4:29:41 PM Hitler said the quote above it, genius. The page also has Hitler's first name misspelled, BTW. And note this little tidbit about the Kissinger "quotation": 514. PelleNilsson - 9/18/2002 4:30:15 PM My dear Judith 515. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/18/2002 4:31:36 PM Here ya go joe . . . 516. judithathome - 9/18/2002 4:36:00 PM Okay, fine. I am so glad you people are always right. 517. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/18/2002 4:38:19 PM 518. Edmund Dantes - 9/18/2002 4:38:36 PM If the Russians want to clear out Chechen camps in Georgia, realistically the US isn't going to stop it in any event. 519. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/18/2002 4:39:54 PM 520. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/18/2002 4:40:42 PM 521. Cellar Door - 9/18/2002 4:47:35 PM We'll be fighting in the streets 522. Edmund Dantes - 9/18/2002 4:57:14 PM Good to see Wizzo has gone back to cartoons. That way we know from the start we're not to take his posts as serious. 523. alistairconnor - 9/18/2002 5:01:40 PM Message # 497 524. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/18/2002 5:06:58 PM Sure thing, Councillor Whiplash--now read Alistair's numbers and go shit in your desk drawer. 525. jexster - 9/18/2002 5:49:48 PM Is Sybil causing problems again? 526. jexster - 9/18/2002 5:57:38 PM Amour sacré de la Patrie 527. jexster - 9/18/2002 6:07:08 PM Damn Sad-am GASSED HIS OWN PEOPLE 528. Edmund Dantes - 9/18/2002 6:20:58 PM claims Dantès. 529. Edmund Dantes - 9/18/2002 6:22:22 PM Further, people will say they're against a bad alternative until they're actually faced with it. If asked, "Should we get UN approval," they think yeah, let's. But should the UN actually not approve many will say "Fuck the UN." 530. alistairconnor - 9/18/2002 6:27:52 PM Well, the question also says only if the United Nations supports that action, not if the UN is neutral or waffles around and doesn't do anything. And 46% agreed with that. 531. Edmund Dantes - 9/18/2002 6:31:09 PM The only greater betrayal will be if it turns out, upon inspection, that Iraq is not still building weapons of mass destruction and has no nuclear capability after all. 532. alistairconnor - 9/18/2002 6:32:03 PM Message # 529 On the other hand, what you seem to be saying is that once the US has ground troops engaged, the majority in the US will support it. 533. Edmund Dantes - 9/18/2002 6:35:05 PM It's ground troops and a hypothetical UN position. Let the UN actually oppose us (which they won't), and see what the poll results say. 534. jexster - 9/18/2002 7:06:40 PM Poll numbers look like shit without UN support.... 535. jexster - 9/18/2002 7:30:04 PM 536. jexster - 9/18/2002 7:33:28 PM PROJECT ON DEFENSE ALTERNATIVES 537. jexster - 9/18/2002 7:36:28 PM Joezan, you are the host of this thread and it seems to be your intention to have only those who agree with you on it. That is fine but it doesn't make for much discussion. Since you've set that standard, I hope you enjoy haivng a gang of parrots around because that's all you'll end up with 538. jexster - 9/18/2002 7:44:27 PM 539. jexster - 9/18/2002 7:46:23 PM But this ain't Jeopardy Jex, what's the question? 540. jexster - 9/18/2002 8:27:43 PM "Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in 'mission creep' and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed [and] there was no viable 'exit strategy' we could see, violating another of our principles... Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the UN's mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the US could conceivably still be an occupying power in bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different -- and perhaps barren -- outcome." The First Earl of The Bunkport 541. jexster - 9/18/2002 8:38:52 PM Iraq Nuke Leaks: Another Crock of BushShit 542. jexster - 9/18/2002 8:40:40 PM Bush is trying to hotbox this because he knows that if he doesn't do it now, hearings will expose the fraud. 543. jexster - 9/18/2002 9:22:17 PM Republican candidates are beating the war drums just as support for invading Iraq is dissipating. Whereas a Gallup Poll last November revealed 74 percent in favor of a ground invasion of Iraq and 20 percent opposed, this August the percentage of those in favor plummeted to 53, with 41 percent opposed -- roughly the same margin that existed before September 11. 544. Edmund Dantes - 9/18/2002 10:19:44 PM If anyone knows nukes, its the folks at the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists - an outfit founded by Albert Einstein. 545. Edmund Dantes - 9/18/2002 10:19:51 PM She probably knows more than the American Federation of Scientists and UNSCOM, who said in 1997: 546. Edmund Dantes - 9/18/2002 10:26:19 PM We've heard from Jasper's expert, Linda, the online bulletin editor. Now let's hear from Saddam's bombmaker, back in 1999, lest Linda and Jumpingjack Jasper think it's a Bush "leak": 547. Edmund Dantes - 9/18/2002 10:29:49 PM After the 8 August 1995 defection of Lt. Gen. Hussein Kamel Majid, son-in-law to Saddam Hussein, and former director of weapon procurement, Iraq revealed that during the Gulf conflict in 1990-91, it had initiated a crash development program to manufacture a single nuclear weapon using highly enriched uranium fuel intended for its internationally safeguarded Tammuz test reactor. The plan was to complete the atomic bomb during the spring of 1991. Unirradiated and low-irradiated fuel was actually unloaded and some fuel elements later turned over to UN inspectors show signs of tampering. Iraq had 12.3 kg or 93% U-235, and 33.1 kg of 80% U-235 available that was unirradiated or had low radiation levels and could have been easily processed. With the start of hostilities in January these plans were aborted. 548. Edmund Dantes - 9/18/2002 10:30:53 PM That's what happens when you "trust Saddam at his word." 549. joezan - 9/18/2002 10:35:05 PM Jasper, are you still on the "Saddam agrees to unconditional inspections" kick? 550. Al D - 9/18/2002 11:14:59 PM If the U.S. has proof of Saddam being close to an A-bomb, it will share that infornmation with the only real ally we have in Europe, Briton. Liberals would praise Blair to the heavens were he speaking against what Bush plans to do. As much as I admire the French people, at least all the wonderful, helpful ones I met the month I was there, I give not a tinker's dam for their governments's view. As to the Germans...what I feel is best left unsaid. 551. Wombat - 9/19/2002 10:25:13 AM The inspection regime that I want to see would feature an air strike on any installation that the Iraqis refuse to allow inspectors into, preferably within minutes of said refusal. 552. jexster - 9/19/2002 10:56:22 AM First came the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists now 553. jexster - 9/19/2002 11:00:59 AM BOAS 554. jexster - 9/19/2002 11:02:18 AM 555. jexster - 9/19/2002 11:02:21 AM 556. jexster - 9/19/2002 11:03:22 AM Mysteriously, Vice President Dick Cheney said on Meet the Press that he could not comment on what the administration knows, only on what had appeared in the Times—in other words, he would discuss only a selective, agreed-upon leak. He then asserted that the administration knew of only one attempted purchase of aluminum tubes because, he said, “we intercepted” that shipment. And if, he said, one shipment had been intercepted, how many others might have gotten through? 557. jexster - 9/19/2002 11:04:19 AM 558. jexster - 9/19/2002 11:08:05 AM Not all of us, just so they get enough people scared, add a few wack jobs to the corn pone "christian" crowd and LET'S ROLL 559. jexster - 9/19/2002 11:09:22 AM Pick up those sagging poll numbers with the blood of US servicemen and women... 560. ronski - 9/19/2002 11:17:16 AM To this end, perhaps. 561. jexster - 9/19/2002 11:32:27 AM You can't understand today's Iraq debate without understanding Karl Rove's view of the nation's political crossroads and the longer-term struggle between Democrats and Republicans to achieve a new governing majority. If you're convinced that Iraq is purely about national security, read no further. If you want to understand the full picture, let's go to the heart of darkness. 562. jexster - 9/19/2002 11:33:04 AM 563. Edmund Dantes - 9/19/2002 11:41:51 AM Posts 553-557 are regurgitation of the exact same material in post 541, just at greater length--and greater violation of copyright. This material was rebutted and shown to be factually inaccurate in posts 544-545. 564. jexster - 9/19/2002 11:42:29 AM UN to Upset Bush War with One Year Iraq Deadline 565. Edmund Dantes - 9/19/2002 11:42:44 AM First came the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists now 566. jexster - 9/19/2002 11:43:10 AM What you don't like Eddie is fact...so sue me you silly fuck 567. jexster - 9/19/2002 11:43:54 AM whine all you want little boy.... 568. Edmund Dantes - 9/19/2002 11:46:35 AM David Albright has written extensively about Iraq's nuclear capabilities in the past. 569. Edmund Dantes - 9/19/2002 11:47:02 AM From 1995: 570. jexster - 9/19/2002 11:47:57 AM "According to Albright, government experts on nuclear technology who dissented from the Bush administration's view told him they were expected to remain silent" 571. Edmund Dantes - 9/19/2002 11:48:22 AM And from just last year: 572. jexster - 9/19/2002 11:50:23 AM should not be interpreted as suggesting that Iraq will not be a serious proliferation threat in the future. If sanctions are removed, the international community will face a formidable challenge to insure that Iraq does not revive its nuclear effort. 573. Edmund Dantes - 9/19/2002 11:50:48 AM So your man Albright (whose agenda is pretty clear if you read enough of his articles: lots of longterm employment for weapons inspectors in Iraq and all kinds of other places), says Saddam can't be trusted, Jasper. 574. jexster - 9/19/2002 11:54:19 AM Be honest...this isn't about WMD....not about threats to neighbors (they think BUSH is the greater threat)...hardly about the UN's integrity as we are even now finding out...this is about the wacko schemes of a bunch of ultra militarists civilians in the Pentagon with no military experience, marginal sanity, and loud mouth con man from West Texas who opened his mouth too quickly, lost control of internal decision making becuase he's too stupid to control those he appointed, and its about what Richard Perle said it was about....about making Bush believable after he's been shooting his mouth off for a year 575. Edmund Dantes - 9/19/2002 11:56:08 AM Be honest, you'd suck Saddam off in a heartbeat. 576. jexster - 9/19/2002 11:56:22 AM Not my man Albright Ace, I don't know the guy... 577. jexster - 9/19/2002 11:58:05 AM "is not" "is" 578. jexster - 9/19/2002 11:59:09 AM he needs a war..he can do it all by himself..and so he's gonna get it...the rest is bullshit 579. ronski - 9/19/2002 11:59:18 AM jexster, 580. jexster - 9/19/2002 11:59:30 AM not all of us are retarded 581. jexster - 9/19/2002 12:02:51 PM You hate Bush so much you have to pretend he's worse than Saddam, so much that you think Saddam is actually an injured party 582. jexster - 9/19/2002 12:03:12 PM and I loathe him 583. ronski - 9/19/2002 12:05:46 PM 584. PelleNilsson - 9/19/2002 12:10:19 PM Well, Jexster, your sloppy, uncritical handling of your sources, allowing Edmund to pulverize you again and again, doesn't make you into an asset for the anti-war movement, quite the contrary. 585. PelleNilsson - 9/19/2002 12:12:19 PM By the way, there is a poster, who has not been around for some time, DrLohrM, who maintains that all Mongolian ponies are called Edmund. I think this is important to know. 586. jexster - 9/19/2002 12:16:14 PM Well Pelle I don't quite think that Eddie pulverized anything...all he did was say that David Albright contributes to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. 587. jexster - 9/19/2002 12:18:44 PM BTW - I thought we weren't on speaking terms? 588. jexster - 9/19/2002 12:19:45 PM Report on Sept. 14–16 ANSWER EMERGENCY ACTIONS to STOP the WAR*** 589. jexster - 9/19/2002 12:23:49 PM Ronski - I believe everything I post here and anywhere else...when I am joking its obvious except perhaps to Zan...I am not REALLY a noted moral theologian... 590. jexster - 9/19/2002 12:45:52 PM Well, if we can plug into Iraq's power grid or send Saddam a lamp with a bug in it, we'll be in business 591. jexster - 9/19/2002 12:47:18 PM send Saddam a lamp with a bug in it 592. jexster - 9/19/2002 12:52:47 PM The report of the IAEA director general to the Security 593. jexster - 9/19/2002 12:53:18 PM Ronski - Do you still believe that Saddam is going to put a nuke under your bed? 594. Wombat - 9/19/2002 12:53:25 PM Jex is turning this thread into a spam and flame-fest, which is a pity. 595. jexster - 9/19/2002 12:54:22 PM Preceding from Carnegie Endowment "IAEA Iraq Action Team Record" - see butterbar link 596. jexster - 9/19/2002 12:55:37 PM Yes you are correct on both points Wombat except the definition of spam 597. Wombat - 9/19/2002 12:58:59 PM One suspects that if this was taking place during the Clinton Administration, you would be cheerleading as heartily as you are now condemning. 598. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/19/2002 12:59:09 PM 599. jexster - 9/19/2002 12:59:36 PM In case you've forgotten Wombat, Slobo chased half a million or so Kosovars onto the Macedonian plain at the point of tank barrels....the only credible evidence that anything similar will or even MIGHT happen in or about the neighborhood of Iraq, involves Sharon as previously noted in links 600. jexster - 9/19/2002 1:00:56 PM You can suspect all you like Wombat..... 601. Wombat - 9/19/2002 1:02:57 PM Jex: 602. Wombat - 9/19/2002 1:04:45 PM Has Milosevic bombarded Iranian and Israeli cities with ballistic missiles? 603. Wombat - 9/19/2002 1:12:58 PM Don't get me wrong, however. In the absence of new information on Saddam's capabilities, I have strong suspicions about the Bush Administration's rationale for moving Iraq to the front burner; their preparation of the country and the world for this has been sloppy, unconvincing and ass-backward; and based on their handling of post-Taliban Afghanistan, I have no confidence whatsoever that they are equipped to handle the aftermath of a successful campaign against Saddam, without making the situation more unstable and more dangerous than it already is. 604. jexster - 9/19/2002 1:13:30 PM Refighting the Iran/Iraq war? What's Iran's position now? 605. jexster - 9/19/2002 1:17:35 PM I only flame Wombat, in answer to flame or to flim flam, something I rarely encounter with you Wombat...thank God. 606. jexster - 9/19/2002 1:19:22 PM 2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time: 607. jexster - 9/19/2002 1:23:06 PM there must be serious prospects of success; 608. Wombat - 9/19/2002 1:23:29 PM With respect, Jex, the "Just War" theory has been violated almost uniformly in recent history, including GW1 and Kosovo. 609. ronski - 9/19/2002 1:29:52 PM jexster, 610. jexster - 9/19/2002 1:43:08 PM "believe there is a serious threat to the US from wmd being smuggled into this country. Anyone who thinks that scenario is an impossible fantasy is an idiot. 611. jexster - 9/19/2002 1:49:48 PM As numerous other "idiots" have pointed out, as I have pointed out 612. jexster - 9/19/2002 1:52:31 PM I am not a doctor nor an atomic scientist but I think you are suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and should stop listening to William Parcher 613. ronski - 9/19/2002 1:57:15 PM jexster, 614. jexster - 9/19/2002 1:57:21 PM Gulf of Tonkin Resolution 2002 615. jexster - 9/19/2002 2:05:04 PM The point, which you miss or ignore, is that nuclear proliferation in the Middle East is an extremely dangerous proposition for America's safety, and especially so if that development takes place in a country run by a U.S.-hating psycho, a country that may be even more unstable in the hands of a Baathist successor to Saddam, hence the reasonable attractiveness of regime change there now, dicated by the UN if possible, by the US and UK alone, if necessary 616. jexster - 9/19/2002 2:07:28 PM Don't bother telling me what I believe, Ronski...I'll do that 617. jexster - 9/19/2002 2:14:33 PM George W. Bush claims to be a Methodist. So why isn't he listening to the leaders of his church? Jim Winkler, staff executive of the United Methodist Church's advocacy and action agency, calls Bush's warmongering "unprecedented disregard for democratic ideals" and says that there is "an astonishing lack of evidence justifying such a pre-emptive attack". He calls on all United Methodists to speak out against an unprovoked attack. The Methodist, Episcopal and Catholic Churches and the Church of England are now on record against Bush's War 618. jexster - 9/19/2002 2:19:32 PM Wombat...the just war theory was not violated in either case, though an argument can be made that it was as I have conceded.... 619. jexster - 9/19/2002 2:22:48 PM BTW as I must take my leave, David Albright is not only a contributor to the Bulletin of ATomic Scientists, he is also a contributor to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, "Iraq: A New Approach" with Ambassador Ekeus et al 620. Wombat - 9/19/2002 2:35:11 PM Jex: 621. jexster - 9/19/2002 3:55:15 PM Hell Wombat the world would be a better place with Bush...one could "speculate" about beautiful and happy future for Iraq under a US occupation that would make stalin blush...but what one cannot do is cast a credible argument that pre-emptive agression against Iraq is just.... 622. jexster - 9/19/2002 3:56:00 PM 623. jexster - 9/19/2002 3:59:20 PM Speaking of prescience and sharing etc... 624. jexster - 9/19/2002 4:02:37 PM We'll pick this up later...I go play Gen Chuikov Close Combat III..I am in Stalingrad.... 625. Wombat - 9/19/2002 4:09:20 PM Yes Jex, I read the piece you are sharing. It was written before Bush went to the UN. 626. jexster - 9/19/2002 4:26:45 PM USA Today reports that Bush "is expanding on and in some cases contradicting U.S. intelligence reports in making the case for an invasion of Iraq, interviews with administration and intelligence officials indicate. Administration officials accuse Iraq of having ties to al-Qaeda terrorists and of amassing weapons of mass destruction despite uncertain and sometimes contrary intelligence on these issues, according to officials. In some cases, top administration officials disagree outright with what the CIA and other intelligence agencies report. For example, they repeat accounts of al-Qaeda members seeking refuge in Iraq and of terrorist operatives meeting with Iraqi intelligence officials, even though U.S. intelligence reports raise doubts about such links. On Iraqi weapons programs, administration officials draw the most pessimistic conclusions from ambiguous evidence." 627. Edmund Dantes - 9/19/2002 5:54:40 PM I am an idiot... 628. Edmund Dantes - 9/19/2002 5:56:20 PM Jexster, your sloppy, uncritical handling of your sources...doesn't make you into an asset for the anti-war movement, quite the contrary. 629. jexster - 9/19/2002 7:00:13 PM Given the volume he posts, even if most of those posts appear multiple times, how could he possibly be anything but sloppy and uncritical? 630. jexster - 9/19/2002 7:06:25 PM "The failure to take on Saddam after what the president said would produce such a collapse of confidence in the president that it would set back the war on terrorism." Richard Perle, August 2002 631. jexster - 9/19/2002 7:11:56 PM HEADLINE: Inspectors will be admitted to any facilities: Iraqi ambassador 632. joezan - 9/19/2002 8:46:13 PM 1) That is not what Iraq agreed to - let's see it in writing. 633. joezan - 9/19/2002 8:47:40 PM Anyway - is it just me, or did Dubya die his hair? 634. Cellar Door - 9/19/2002 8:55:07 PM Just his pubic hair. 635. joezan - 9/19/2002 9:06:17 PM Well I guess you'd know. 636. jexster - 9/19/2002 10:16:43 PM Last week's charade proved even shorter lived than even I thought, as the UN security council is poised to call Bush's bluff and that right soon. Since per the latest polls, only 39% support unilateral war...you figger it out.... 637. jexster - 9/19/2002 10:18:39 PM Respect for the UN... 638. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/19/2002 11:09:15 PM 639. Edmund Dantes - 9/19/2002 11:24:05 PM Loyalty of Iraq's elite in doubt 640. joezan - 9/19/2002 11:30:34 PM That's ok, ED. 641. joezan - 9/19/2002 11:34:22 PM ...Jasper and Tareq - they'll hold our guys off while the Feddayyeen sneak up from behind, armed with their deadly tongue scissors and portable guillotines. 642. Cellar Door - 9/19/2002 11:41:39 PM As timely as ever --perhaps more so. 643. Edmund Dantes - 9/20/2002 8:25:07 AM Unconditional conditions 644. Marc-Albert - 9/20/2002 8:32:42 AM Saddam's Bombmaker: Khidhir Hamza, former Head of Iraq's Nuclear Armament Program until he fled to the West in 1994. 645. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/20/2002 11:13:57 AM 646. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/20/2002 11:18:39 AM 647. jexster - 9/20/2002 11:27:36 AM 648. jexster - 9/20/2002 12:50:55 PM 649. jexster - 9/20/2002 12:59:59 PM President Bush's request to Congress yesterday for authorization to invade Iraq marked the broadest request for military authority by any White House since President Lyndon B. Johnson won approval of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution in1964, legal scholars said 650. jexster - 9/20/2002 1:01:25 PM U.S. Naval Institute: The Secret Side of the Tonkin Gulf Incident 651. jexster - 9/20/2002 1:46:47 PM TONY BLAIR has highlighted differences with the US over Iraq by refusing to endorse the Bush Administration’s objective of “regime change” in Baghdad. 652. jexster - 9/20/2002 2:16:09 PM An illuminating contrast 653. jexster - 9/20/2002 2:17:01 PM corn pone crackpots 654. jexster - 9/20/2002 2:17:25 PM toys 655. jexster - 9/20/2002 2:48:39 PM "Bush wants to divert attention from his domestic problems. It's a classic tactic. It's one that Hitler used." - Herta Daeubler-Gmelin, Germany's justice minister 656. robertjayb - 9/20/2002 3:48:37 PM 657. Edmund Dantes - 9/20/2002 5:29:21 PM Perhaps we should create a "cartoon" thread.... 658. Cellar Door - 9/20/2002 5:37:58 PM Annan clearly doesn't want the UN treated like Arafat's compound. 659. Cellar Door - 9/20/2002 5:38:17 PM Though that might still happen. 660. jexster - 9/20/2002 9:40:11 PM The Honorable George W. Bush 661. jexster - 9/20/2002 9:40:46 PM We believe Iraq is a different case. Given the precedents and risks involved, we find it difficult to justify extending the war on terrorism to Iraq, absent clear and adequate evidence of Iraqi involvement in the attacks of September 11th or of an imminent attack of a grave nature. 662. jexster - 9/20/2002 9:41:48 PM 663. jexster - 9/20/2002 9:42:46 PM Legitimate authority. The moral credibility of the use of military force also depends heavily on whether there is legitimate authority for using force to topple the Iraqi government. In our judgment, decisions of such gravity require compliance with U.S. constitutional imperatives, broad consensus within our nation, and some form of international sanction, preferably by the UN Security Council. That is why your decision to seek congressional and United Nations approval is so important. With the Holy See, we would be deeply skeptical about unilateral uses of military force, particularly given the troubling precedents involved. 664. jexster - 9/20/2002 9:43:37 PM b>Probability of success and proportionality. The use of force must have "serious prospects for success" and "must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated" (Catechism, #2309). War against Iraq could have unpredictable consequences not only for Iraq but for peace and stability elsewhere in the Middle East. Would preventive or preemptive force succeed in thwarting serious threats or, instead, provoke the very kind of attacks that it is intended to prevent? How would another war in Iraq impact the civilian population, in the short- and long-term? How many more innocent people would suffer and die, or be left without homes, without basic necessities, without work? Would the United States and the international community commit to the arduous, long-term task of ensuring a just peace or would a post-Saddam Iraq continue to be plagued by civil conflict and repression, and continue to serve as a destabilizing force in the region? Would the use of military force lead to wider conflict and instability? Would war against Iraq detract from our responsibility to help build a just and stable order in Afghanistan and undermine the broader coalition against terrorism? 665. jexster - 9/20/2002 9:43:49 PM 666. joezan - 9/20/2002 10:02:02 PM I think we've all heard it by now, jex: The Catholic Church feels Bush's proposed preemptive war against Iraq violates its Just War protocols. 667. judithathome - 9/21/2002 12:59:53 AM Nice #, Joey. 668. concerned - 9/21/2002 2:39:36 AM re. 659 - 669. jexster - 9/22/2002 6:34:49 AM If the Security Council passes a resolution authorizing the use of force if Iraq fails to comply with inspections, the US and its allies invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam, how then would this violate just war theory? 670. jexster - 9/22/2002 7:32:40 AM 671. jexster - 9/22/2002 7:35:28 AM To a commercial contract litigator, that's a scandalous EVIL indeed! Frankly, it hadn't even occured to me that I had fallen into the occupational vice -exalting form over substance. 672. joezan - 9/22/2002 7:40:51 AM Jex: 673. jexster - 9/22/2002 8:24:57 AM U.N. Hunt for Iraqi Weapons Could Take Time-Experts 674. jexster - 9/22/2002 8:29:06 AM My sperm's in the gutter, my love in the sink...Jethro Tull 675. jexster - 9/22/2002 8:37:56 AM Lesson time....moral home schoolin for Zan... 676. jexster - 9/22/2002 8:49:31 AM This is NOT a protocol. 680. joezan - 9/22/2002 9:37:01 AM Posts 677-679 were deleted - they are repeated repeats. 681. joezan - 9/22/2002 9:37:56 AM ...spamming... 682. Cellar Door - 9/22/2002 10:10:06 AM A TRUE Patriot speaks. 683. Cellar Door - 9/22/2002 11:09:54 AM 684. Edmund Dantes - 9/22/2002 11:47:38 AM Msg 682: A TRUE Patriot speaks. 685. jexster - 9/22/2002 11:52:08 AM Fuck you Zan... 686. Edmund Dantes - 9/22/2002 11:53:40 AM Byrd per the link: "Back in August, the president had no plans.... Then all of a sudden this country is going to war." 687. jexster - 9/22/2002 11:57:50 AM OK I will admit that Byrd is no patriot. 688. jexster - 9/22/2002 12:11:12 PM And because its Sunday and I am off to Mass, 689. Cellar Door - 9/22/2002 12:25:01 PM The world's most serious threat to Peace is the Bush mob. 690. jexster - 9/22/2002 12:46:54 PM Ed's post from the Guardian was interesting and for some reason sounded just plausible enough to believe with nothing more than a blind attribution behind it. It just rang true. 691. jexster - 9/22/2002 12:50:55 PM "Back in August, the president had no plans.... Then all of a sudden this country is going to war." 692. jexster - 9/22/2002 1:12:54 PM A wide ranging yet informative OpEd in the Guardian, a pre-publication of an article written for an upcoming issue of a Brit FP journal... 693. Edmund Dantes - 9/22/2002 1:52:01 PM Fester, go right ahead and post your usual spastic colon of Nexis links that don't have any apparent point to them except to give your posting button release. Proving a negative isn't too easy, especial when the March link above proves the positive: that Bush & company were already focusing their sights on Iraq in March. From the link-- 694. Cellar Door - 9/22/2002 2:47:45 PM Robert "White Nigger" Byrd 695. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/22/2002 2:50:05 PM Mr. Miserable™ always evades the unmistakable truth with bullying vituperates—Gee, who should that remind us of? 696. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/22/2002 2:58:26 PM Refute this quote Quibbler: 697. joezan - 9/22/2002 3:34:07 PM Mark Twain was senile by 1910. 698. joezan - 9/22/2002 3:37:15 PM BTW - it's just hilarious that you gibronis have yourselves convinced ED is Ace. 699. Edmund Dantes - 9/22/2002 3:44:20 PM Why, Wizzo, I thought you only flamed in response to flames. To tell truth, however, I don't think your mind even cogitates in any linear fashion, so you'd best stick to silly pictures and (trying) to quote others. 700. joezan - 9/22/2002 3:48:11 PM One regime change down, one to go (...for now, anyway): 701. Edmund Dantes - 9/22/2002 3:53:16 PM Re your quotation from Mark Twain's character "Satan": Twain served in the Civil War, which you may or may not characterize as a "just war." 702. Edmund Dantes - 9/22/2002 3:53:43 PM "he thinks..." 703. ronski - 9/22/2002 4:59:20 PM Byrd isn't much better on the subject of gays than he was on blacks, btw. 704. ronski - 9/22/2002 5:01:20 PM joezan, 705. Cellar Door - 9/22/2002 8:49:21 PM BTW - it's just hilarious that you gibronis have yourselves convinced ED is Ace. 706. joezan - 9/22/2002 9:52:21 PM Ronski: 707. jexster - 9/22/2002 10:19:18 PM Shroeder, Shroeder Uber Moron 708. jexster - 9/22/2002 10:52:07 PM Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has informed the Bush administration that he plans to strike back if Iraq attacks Israel... Mr. Sharon's statements, made privately to senior American officials in recent weeks, represent a major shift in Israeli thinking since the 1991 Persian Gulf war, when 39 Iraqi Scud missiles struck without any Israeli response... Mr. Sharon's position has significant implications for the Pentagon, which fears that an Israeli entry would stir up Arab public opinion and make it harder for the Pentagon to maintain cooperation from the Arab states where Washington hopes to base American forces... 'If something happens, we will have to solidify our deterrence,' the official continued. 'We think that everybody has to understand that it is not an easy task to try and challenge Israel from a military point of view.'" 709. ronski - 9/22/2002 11:01:26 PM joezan, 710. jexster - 9/22/2002 11:02:43 PM "Sen. Robert C. Byrd, D-WV, said... Bush's plans to invade Iraq are a conscious effort to distract public attention from growing problems at home... 'Are politicians talking about the domestic situation, the stock market, weaknesses in the economy, jobs that are being lost, housing problems? No... Congress will be putting itself on the sidelines... Nothing would please this resident more than having such a blank check handed to him.' Byrd said his belief in the Constitution will prevent him from voting for Bush's war resolution. 'But I am finding that the Constitution is irrelevant to people of this administration'... 'Instead of using the forum of the UN... to offer evidence and proof of his claims, the resident basically told the nations of the world that you are either with me, or against me,' 'I cannot believe the gall and the arrogance of the White House in requesting such a broad grant of war powers,' Byrd said. 'This is the worst kind of election-year politics.'" 711. jexster - 9/22/2002 11:05:00 PM You want me to flambe your fag ass along with Zan the Fundie Freak... 712. jexster - 9/22/2002 11:05:04 PM You want me to flambe your fag ass along with Zan the Fundie Freak... 713. jexster - 9/22/2002 11:17:43 PM Have you asked yourself what happened to our Gulf War vets? Why isn't Bush surrounding himself with vets from Desert Storm in photo-ops designed to make his case for the invasion of Iraq? Perhaps because close to 10,000 Gulf War vets have died, not on the battlefield but here at home, from a syndrome the US government (Pentagon and VA) refuses to fully recognize. By report, experts have said hundreds of thousands of American troops were exposed to biological and chemical weapons on the battlefield in Iraq. These vets have been shamelessly treated AND forgotten, coming home after war only to face a projected illness or even death, most in VA hospitals. I seem to recall Bush touting the fact after the war that there was minimal loss of life. That's simply not the case is it? 714. jexster - 9/22/2002 11:21:24 PM b>Bush Wants War - And Changes His Demands When Iraq Says Yes 715. jexster - 9/22/2002 11:27:23 PM 716. ronski - 9/23/2002 4:42:49 PM 717. joezan - 9/23/2002 4:58:31 PM Molly Ivins is a drunk. 718. concerned - 9/23/2002 6:02:14 PM 719. concerned - 9/23/2002 6:18:24 PM From WSJ's 'Best of the Web' Today': 720. Cellar Door - 9/23/2002 9:19:27 PM 721. joezan - 9/23/2002 10:30:22 PM Well, he didn't write a letter, but former Joint Chiefs Chairman John Shalikashvili - remember him? --- appointed by Clinton? - said today that he fully supports a war against Iraq. Said President Bush is doing the right thing. 722. Cellar Door - 9/24/2002 1:19:04 AM Well if he did he's an idiot. 723. thoughtful - 9/24/2002 11:21:45 AM The Day After on the importance of thinking through what happens after the easy part of eliminating Saddam: 724. Cellar Door - 9/24/2002 11:58:23 AM Peggy Noonan Opposes Bush Doctrine!!!! 725. jexster - 9/24/2002 1:39:21 PM Royal Hissy Fit 726. joezan - 9/24/2002 1:42:43 PM Well, so far it's gotten Schroeder to fire two ministers. I figure we shine them on a few more weeks, we might get some movement on his Iraq stance. 727. jexster - 9/24/2002 1:43:26 PM And Now a Message from the President-Elect of the United States 728. jexster - 9/24/2002 1:44:24 PM You figured wrong Joey - but hey why mess up a perfect record! 729. jexster - 9/24/2002 1:45:18 PM mandate 730. jexster - 9/24/2002 1:57:25 PM |: Deutsche Frauen, deutsche Treue, 731. PelleNilsson - 9/24/2002 2:18:20 PM I think we should be bloody glad that the Germans have adopted a pacifist stance ever since the end of WWII. 732. jexster - 9/24/2002 2:41:36 PM AJAF, Iraq — As soon as American troops are rolling through Saddam Hussein's palaces, the odds are that this holy Shiite city 100 miles south of Baghdad will erupt in a fury of killing, torture, rape and chaos. 733. thoughtful - 9/24/2002 3:09:16 PM Jex...did you see #723 above? Guess not. 734. jexster - 9/24/2002 3:10:39 PM JoeZ - Don't fret Shroeder, Bush is going to have a hard time just keeping Blair... 735. jexster - 9/24/2002 3:12:23 PM Got me thougtful...I saw "need to think" just lost control! 736. thoughtful - 9/24/2002 3:46:47 PM Calm down...not good for your blood pressure. 737. Cellar Door - 9/24/2002 4:45:33 PM 738. concerned - 9/24/2002 4:50:56 PM Good news for CD. At the very least, the Brits are behind the US all the way on Iraq, so no fear of the US 'going it alone'. Wonder why Gallup polls were not phrased that way before the Kosovo debacle when the WH Rapist did nothing, NOTHING, to get UN or Congressional approval. 739. concerned - 9/24/2002 4:52:45 PM So, Celldoor, by default, believes in the superiority of Republican statesmanship, by the implicitly higher standard he expects from the political right, i.e. adults. 740. Cellar Door - 9/24/2002 4:58:54 PM Where did you get such a demented idea? 741. concerned - 9/24/2002 5:00:08 PM Just pushing the envelope a little, there. 742. concerned - 9/24/2002 5:02:20 PM I like to flip certain assertions around and see what lurks on the other side:) 743. Edmund Dantes - 9/24/2002 5:06:26 PM Bottom Door is becoming truly desperate if he thinks that poll is anything but good news for Bush & Co. Which do voters think is more important in the upcoming election? 744. Cellar Door - 9/24/2002 6:05:58 PM The Count of Mount-'em-with-Ciscois becoming truly desperate if he thinks that poll is anything but bad news for Bush & Co. 745. concerned - 9/24/2002 6:35:04 PM 746. Cellar Door - 9/24/2002 6:46:44 PM Gallup Poll Reflects Failed Bush Leadership 747. ronski - 9/24/2002 6:52:52 PM Being of half-German descent I have on more than one occasion defended the German national character against excessive assaults, but I have to say I kind of agree with Pelle in Message # 731. (And the same could be said of the Japanese.) 748. ronski - 9/24/2002 6:59:40 PM As for the Gallup Poll, it is not bad news for Bush. It is pretty clear that if the U.N. balks at supporting a U.S. invasion, the majority of the American people will be behind the campaign after Bush exlpains how it was necessary to bypass the U.N. 749. joezan - 9/24/2002 7:11:49 PM The Count of Mount-'em-with-Ciscois becoming truly desperate if he thinks that poll is anything but bad 750. joezan - 9/24/2002 7:16:49 PM X-post w/ronski. 751. concerned - 9/24/2002 7:38:21 PM Re. 747 - 752. Edmund Dantes - 9/24/2002 8:16:09 PM The majority of Americans do not trust Bush with the power he is asking Congress to approve. 753. Edmund Dantes - 9/24/2002 8:20:31 PM I just hope Basement Door, Al "Peace Train" Gore, Jasper, and all the rest keep thinking they're representing the prevailing American viewpoint on this issue, and that it's the best point for the Democrats to build an election campaign around. 754. ronski - 9/24/2002 8:25:23 PM Could we see a poll asking whether Al Gore's speech was the first salvo in his campaign for the 2004 nomination or a principled analysis of the options facing the American people regarding Iraq? 755. ronski - 9/24/2002 8:28:07 PM Eddie, 756. ronski - 9/24/2002 8:28:27 PM I mean, now that the German elections are over. 757. Edmund Dantes - 9/24/2002 8:32:21 PM If Gore continues with this he won't even be nominated. 758. ronski - 9/24/2002 8:47:56 PM Eddie, 759. joezan - 9/24/2002 9:55:54 PM Well, Gore is positioning himself for something. Exactly what is anyone's guess. 760. jexster - 9/24/2002 11:17:47 PM I agree with ya there Z...the dems ARE a bit spineless and in fact I have said as much. Didn't I post this before? 761. jexster - 9/24/2002 11:18:53 PM I think there's fly in the pigshit. Bush will have HUGE problem if he has to go it alone, if the UN refuses to give him a pretext for war. Likewise, even if the UN does pass a strong resolution, his wag the dog strategy which isn't working for him anyway will most certainly backfire when UN inspectors hit the ground in EyeRak. 762. jexster - 9/24/2002 11:21:45 PM Looks like we have another rogue state defying the UN. This one I hear tell actually HAS nuclear weapons. Looks like Bush has found his next war. 763. jexster - 9/24/2002 11:32:12 PM You remember the Homeland Security Bill dontch Zan? 764. jexster - 9/24/2002 11:49:28 PM Bush's scheme du jour was brought to mind just today while reading a discussion of political economy in my Public Finance text. In political economic parlance, this a classic case of "double peaked" preference, "agenda manipulation", and issue "cycling". 765. jexster - 9/25/2002 12:09:57 AM Three weeks left in the Congressional session. 766. jexster - 9/25/2002 12:15:03 AM I believe that Iraq has agreed to unconditional inspections Z.... 767. jexster - 9/25/2002 12:18:54 AM Message # 760 768. jexster - 9/25/2002 12:24:32 AM My bitch. 769. jexster - 9/25/2002 1:05:42 AM Polls, polls who's got a pole? 770. jexster - 9/25/2002 1:20:51 AM Politics 771. jexster - 9/25/2002 1:21:29 AM Double peaked preference 772. jexster - 9/25/2002 1:57:10 AM Woof Woof Git Yo Hand Off Mah Dick Bitch 773. joezan - 9/25/2002 8:48:39 AM HAHAHA! 774. Edmund Dantes - 9/25/2002 9:15:55 AM Congressional opposition to Iraq resolution crumbling 775. joezan - 9/25/2002 9:27:47 AM Louder War Talk, and Muffled Dissent 776. joezan - 9/25/2002 9:56:54 AM Come again, Al? 777. Cellar Door - 9/25/2002 10:07:39 AM Of course there's no such thing as EVIL. 778. ronski - 9/25/2002 11:17:49 AM Jexster: Didn't I post this before? 779. Edmund Dantes - 9/25/2002 11:33:33 AM He posts the same material twice in the same post. (See #761.) 780. ronski - 9/25/2002 11:41:52 AM Gore's Big Effort to Distinguish Himself 781. joezan - 9/25/2002 1:30:46 PM OOOh, Ronski - that's a keeper: 782. joezan - 9/25/2002 1:31:00 PM And, again, this sentence is a lie. The men who "implemented" the "coldblooded murder of more than 3,000 Americans" are not at large. They are dead; they died in the act of murder, on Sept. 11. Gore can look this up. In truth, the "vast majority" of the men who "sponsored" and "planned" the crime are dead also, or in prison, or on the run. The inmates at Guantanamo Bay, and the hunted survivors of Tora Bora, and the terrorist cell members arrested nearly every week, and the thousands of incarcerated or fugitive Taliban, might disagree as to whether they have been located, apprehended, punished or neutralized. 783. Cellar Door - 9/25/2002 1:46:51 PM Michael Kelly's head is so far up Bush's ass it will never see daylight again. 784. Cellar Door - 9/25/2002 1:47:18 PM Al Gore is an upstanding American. 785. Cellar Door - 9/25/2002 1:48:02 PM In the immortal words of Pogo: "We have met the enemy and He is Us." 786. joezan - 9/25/2002 1:55:12 PM Michael Kelly's head is so far up Bush's ass it will never see daylight again. 787. jexster - 9/25/2002 1:56:38 PM OK Zan steal my line...you need all the help you can get 788. jexster - 9/25/2002 1:58:40 PM 789. PelleNilsson - 9/25/2002 1:59:24 PM Well, I oppose an attack on Iraq because of the manifold potential unintended consequences but it does look as a done deal. Bush will get his resolution from congress, perhaps narrowed down a bit but still sufficient for the purpose at hand. The results of the Gallup poll jexster accounted for upthread showed that 69% of Americans will support a military intervention if Congress gives its blessing. UN support would add another 10% but that's neither here or there. 790. joezan - 9/25/2002 2:01:34 PM Daschole has no shame. 791. jexster - 9/25/2002 2:12:33 PM WASHINGTON (AP) - Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle on Wednesday accused President Bush ( news - web sites) of seeking to politicize the debate over war with Iraq and demanded that he apologize for implying that Democrats were not interested in the security of the American people. 792. jexster - 9/25/2002 2:35:56 PM 793. jexster - 9/25/2002 2:43:57 PM Rep. Sam Farr, D- Monterey: "My emails (Email missives) are running 500 to 1 against" the Bush War. 794. ronski - 9/25/2002 2:44:51 PM Pelle, 795. jexster - 9/25/2002 2:47:17 PM Rumsfeld spoke at a news conference yesterday and said again that Bush had made no decision whether to attak Irak. 796. jexster - 9/25/2002 3:05:52 PM NO MORE BRATWURST! 797. ronski - 9/25/2002 3:13:21 PM We can do without bratwurst. 798. jexster - 9/25/2002 3:15:14 PM Pelle... 799. PelleNilsson - 9/25/2002 3:20:05 PM Ronski Message # 794 800. Cellar Door - 9/25/2002 3:21:46 PM On C-SPAN, Talk of War Gets Awfully Belligerent 801. Cellar Door - 9/25/2002 3:22:05 PM As moderator Connie Brod sat by helplessly, Filner challenged: "Hatred of America? . . . Are you accusing me?" 802. Cellar Door - 9/25/2002 3:23:17 PM Gee C-Span is getting to en just like The Mote! 803. alistairconnor - 9/25/2002 4:23:24 PM Message # 789 Pelle, only 37% of Americans support invading Iraq if the UN opposes it. 804. joezan - 9/25/2002 5:02:43 PM What rot. Yeah - a new era in world history, if your world history goes back only a very few decades. 805. Edmund Dantes - 9/25/2002 5:13:18 PM The UN won't oppose it. 806. Edmund Dantes - 9/25/2002 5:20:55 PM What happens if the UN refuses to pass a new resolution as the US has asked? 807. Cellar Door - 9/25/2002 5:24:29 PM "Domestically, the majority of Americans are going to say "screw the UN." 808. jexster - 9/25/2002 5:58:51 PM WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Majority Leader Tom Daschle demanded an apology on Wednesday from President Bush ( news - web sites) for saying the Democratic-led U.S. Senate "is not interested in the security of the American people," arguing that this "outrageous" remark politicized a possible war with Iraq. 809. jexster - 9/25/2002 6:00:47 PM That's nice Daschle but not good enuf 810. jexster - 9/25/2002 6:08:20 PM 811. jexster - 9/25/2002 6:15:31 PM Well gag me with a spoon Zan 812. ronski - 9/25/2002 6:30:45 PM Since so many people are repeating themselves here, I will too, and I haven't even eaten dinner yet. 813. Cellar Door - 9/25/2002 6:42:23 PM No it wasn't ronski. 814. alistairconnor - 9/25/2002 7:34:53 PM Message # 806If the UN turns Bush down and Bush is serious, then the UN is toast because American unilateralism will toss it in the dustbin with the League of Nations. 815. alistairconnor - 9/25/2002 7:41:32 PM So let's assume Bush goes ahead with his war. The Security Council will not approve it. Obviously, it won't be the first time time the US intervenes without UN sanction -- viz. Latin america -- but it's outside the traditional direct sphere of interest of the US. 816. ronski - 9/25/2002 8:44:15 PM Cellar, 817. jexster - 9/25/2002 9:10:43 PM Oh God...memory lane....Gen Bubbles I was there too. And you won't see "the same pattern here". 818. jexster - 9/25/2002 9:10:57 PM WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A day after the Federal Reserve ( news - web sites) expressed worry over "heightened geopolitical risks" to the U.S. economy, Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill on Wednesday said the question of war with Iraq should not be decided on economic terms. 819. jexster - 9/25/2002 9:13:29 PM I am listening right now to the lead story on CBS News - the WarLord's rant against Congressional Democrats for not loving the country.... 820. jexster - 9/25/2002 9:29:02 PM Oh and BTW, Vietnam was NEVER called a police action, at least not by the LBJ or Kennedy Administrations. Korea was a "police action" and the term was deliberately avoided in Vietnam for that reason. 821. ronski - 9/25/2002 9:31:49 PM alistair, 822. jexster - 9/25/2002 9:51:36 PM "Americans want the U.S. to wait and build an international coalition, and follow the recommendations of the UN, even though they are not sure the U.N. can make a difference. They want the Congress to ask even more questions about military actions - and most now say it's okay to criticize the president's military decisions. And, contrary to the Administration's arguments, many feel that a new war with Iraq would not lessen the threat of terrorism against the U.S. - if anything, it might increase that threat. There is broad public support for getting Congress involved in the current debate about how to deal with Iraq. Twice as many Americans think members of Congress haven't asked enough questions about Bush's policy towards Iraq as think they've asked too many. Many Americans want Congress to take its time on this issue: just over half think Congress should wait until the UN has acted, rather than rush to judgment." CBS News 823. jexster - 9/25/2002 9:53:50 PM Message # 821 824. jexster - 9/25/2002 9:55:48 PM "The chickenhawks were in full-swoop mode. Flying low over Washington, making their loud squawking sounds, calling their fellow Americans out to war. George W. Bush (Texas Air National Guard, term abbreviated) was calling on Congress to 'use all means,' including a massive military assault, to remove Saddam Hussein as the leader of Iraq. Dick Cheney (Vietnam draft deferment, 'had other priorities') was up in Vermont, talking belligerently with that state's Air National Guard... No, there's not a real military-service record in the bunch. Just a group of guys who've learned to talk tough. Real military men have always understood: War is hell. War is best avoided. War is what you do when your very way of life is threatened - and you've tried everything, everything else. They know this because they've been to war... It's always the armchair generals who are the most gung-ho. And is Washington ever in the grip of armchair generals!" 825. jexster - 9/25/2002 9:56:39 PM Three retired four-star American generals said that attacking Iraq without a UN resolution supporting military action could limit aid from allies, energize recruiting for Al Qaeda and undermine America's long-term diplomatic and economic interests. 'We must continue to persuade the other members of the Security Council of the correctness of our position, and we must not be too quick to take no for an answer,' Gen. John M. Shalikashvili, a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee... 'What's the sense of urgency here, and how soon would we need to act unilaterally?' said General [Wesley] Clark, an Army officer who commanded allied forces in the 1999 Kosovo air war. 'So far as any of the information has been presented, there is nothing that indicates that in the immediate, next hours, next days, that there's going to be nuclear-tipped missiles put on launch pads to go against our forces or our allies in the region.'" 826. jexster - 9/25/2002 9:57:56 PM American research companies, with the approval of two previous presidential administrations, provided Iraq biological cultures that could be used for biological weapons, according to testimony to a U.S. Senate committee eight years ago. West Nile Virus, E. coli, anthrax and botulism were among the potentially fatal biological cultures that a U.S. company sent under U.S. Commerce Department licenses after 1985, [under Reagan-Bush]... The Commerce Department under the first Bush administration also authorized eight shipments of cultures that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention later classified as having 'biological warfare significance.' Between 1985 and 1989, the Senate testimony shows, Iraq received at least 72 U.S. shipments of clones, germs and chemicals ranging from substances that could destroy wheat crops, give children and animals the bone-deforming disease rickets, to a nerve gas rated a million times more lethal than Sarin." 827. jexster - 9/25/2002 10:00:05 PM Based upon the hard evidence I have seen, I do not believe the administration has yet made a compelling case for the invasion and occupation of Iraq. There is no doubt in my mind we could win such a war and dispose of Saddam Hussein. The question that continues to nag, however, is 'what then?'" 828. jexster - 9/25/2002 10:01:21 PM OR this - "Rhetoric Over Iraq We'll See How the President's Plans are dividing the country." Channel 7 News At 11 829. jexster - 9/25/2002 10:04:15 PM Shit J Edgar Hoover would have had a file on me by now.. 830. joezan - 9/25/2002 10:11:46 PM Comparing the (potential) war in Iraq to Vietnam is an exercise in idiocy. 831. joezan - 9/25/2002 10:12:40 PM ...jasper will still be home painting his protest signs when the last bomb drops. 832. jexster - 9/25/2002 10:21:24 PM "Bush is like the guy who reserves a hotel room and then asks you to the prom." 833. jexster - 9/25/2002 10:27:06 PM A world in which, Gore should've added, where any such a nation can launch a war if it perceives the slightest threat to its oil or its VP's pallid ego or its bass-fishin' boat collection, its squealing faux-virgin beer-bootleggin' blonde daughters or its father's megawealthy cadre of crusted rich white corporate lizards who bought Shrub his office in the first place, in obvious exchange for ramrodded legislation that would finally eliminate them gol-durn national forests once and for all. 834. jexster - 9/25/2002 10:30:51 PM Yes I know Morford can't spell syncophantic either...but it is funny anyway....I think I should send him an e-mail missive eh Joey? 835. ronski - 9/25/2002 10:31:55 PM jexster, 836. jexster - 9/25/2002 10:36:21 PM "squealing faux-virgin beer-bootleggin' blonde daughters" 837. jexster - 9/25/2002 10:46:45 PM The suspicion will not die that the Bush administration turned to Iraq for relief from a sharp decline in its domestic political prospects. The news had been dominated for months by corporate scandals and the fall of the stock market, and the November elections were shaping up as a referendum on the Republican's handling of domestic social and economic issues. Investigative reporters had turned their attention to Dick Cheney's role at Halliburton and George W. Bush's sale of his Harken Energy shares just before the stock collapsed. 838. joezan - 9/25/2002 10:56:18 PM BTW - I take back that comment I made about "websites jasper won't even visit", or whatever it was I said. 839. jexster - 9/25/2002 11:25:05 PM Ronski Came from Planet Claire... 840. jexster - 9/25/2002 11:26:30 PM Ahhhahhhahhahh Ronksi, not since Ernst Rhoem and the good days of the ESS AHHH have we witnessed such a combination of instinct for the dick and instinct of the herd. 841. jexster - 9/25/2002 11:29:26 PM Corporal Squeak - don't even think of goin there.... 842. Edmund Dantes - 9/25/2002 11:34:01 PM Ok just steal my line, bitches. 843. jexster - 9/25/2002 11:38:00 PM A horse is horse of course of course 844. jexster - 9/25/2002 11:40:38 PM 845. jexster - 9/25/2002 11:45:40 PM 846. jexster - 9/25/2002 11:58:22 PM There is a very real possibility that American deaths could exceed 1,000 in number, and several thousand deaths cannot be ruled out. To count on easy victory, as many American proponents of war seem to do, is not only unsupported by the available evidence and by the methodologies of combat prediction. It's also an irresponsible basis on which to plan military strategy in any future war against Saddam Hussein. 847. jexster - 9/26/2002 12:02:15 AM Thank you for the nice note and the reference. Urban warfare is indeed grim. Since WWII, we have only had to do it twice, when the Marines captured Seoul in Sept. 1950 during the Korean war and again when the Marines liberated Hue during the Vietnamese Tet offensive of 1968. Both caused terrible casualties and I personally lost five good friends between the two actions. Hopefully that will be avoided if we go into Iraq. Here is an excerpt on a strategy for Iraq from an OPED I just submitted to the Washington Post. I don't know yet whether they plan on publishing it. 848. Wombat - 9/26/2002 8:56:47 AM Jexter--of course--ignores most of what Traynor says in his message. 849. judithathome - 9/26/2002 9:11:56 AM Do we know for sure that the populace will welcome us with open arms? I mean, I know there must be some who will but do we actually have any idea if it is a majority or not? 850. Edmund Dantes - 9/26/2002 9:34:22 AM Why don't you leave Joe out of it, Judy, since you don't care what he posts? There you go again, worrying your little head about things that just don't interest you. 851. judithathome - 9/26/2002 9:39:25 AM Why don't just answer my question instead of attacking me personally? 852. Wombat - 9/26/2002 9:42:00 AM If Iraq's military--and Saddam's regime crumbles quickly, we will be welcomed by most Iraqis. If we are committed to rebuilding and rehabiliting Iraq, the welcome will be even more heartfelt. 853. judithathome - 9/26/2002 9:46:47 AM Wombat, do you think there are competent people ready to take over the government; I would think Saddam would have liquadated most who might oppose him by now. I'm sure if there ARE people in the wings, we won't hear about them til after the fact, though, in case making them known would put a target on their backs. 854. Edmund Dantes - 9/26/2002 9:53:03 AM Why don't just answer my question instead of attacking me personally? 855. judithathome - 9/26/2002 9:56:22 AM More personal attacks, just your speed. 856. joezan - 9/26/2002 9:58:28 AM Nation-building in Iraq will be easier - by two or three orders of magnitude - than it will be in Afghanistan, or just about anywhere else for that matter. 857. Edmund Dantes - 9/26/2002 10:04:01 AM Well, the chihuahua shouldn't yelp so loudly when it finally receives a well-deserved kick for its constant yapping and nipping. 858. Wombat - 9/26/2002 10:04:51 AM Judith: 859. joezan - 9/26/2002 10:05:33 AM arf! 860. judithathome - 9/26/2002 10:20:32 AM Thank you, Wombat. 861. Cellar Door - 9/26/2002 10:37:03 AM 862. Wombat - 9/26/2002 10:49:39 AM I wouldn't count on getting much oil out of Iraq for at least a couple of years. I would think that among the first things to be demolished should we invade Iraq would be oil wells, pumps and pipelines. 863. judithathome - 9/26/2002 10:53:07 AM Didn't he do that to several wells in Kuwait at the end of the Gulf War? I guess that's a boon to companies who are in the business of repairing oil rigs, however. 864. Wombat - 9/26/2002 10:57:12 AM Iraqi forces wrecked dozens--if not hundreds--of Kuwaiti oil wells. 865. joezan - 9/26/2002 11:02:00 AM ...and once the Iraqis were kicked out, Kuwait was up to pre-invasion production within just a couple of months. 866. Cellar Door - 9/26/2002 11:53:11 AM Has your SUV rolled over yet, joe? 867. joezan - 9/26/2002 12:22:39 PM Well, there's a substantive, on-topic post. 868. jexster - 9/26/2002 12:24:30 PM JERUSALEM (Reuters) - A former U.N. arms chief expressed fears Thursday Israel might be pushed into using its nuclear arsenal in a war with Iraq, but Israel vowed it would take only "proper actions" if it were hit by nonconventional weapons or suffered casualties. 869. RustlerPike - 9/26/2002 12:28:25 PM "My deepest fear in that context, if that occurs and the war escalates, is that Israel will use its nuclear weapons," Butler said. "If that happens, the world would have been changed beyond recognition, and I would fear that if that happens the state of Israel would cease to exist." 870. jexster - 9/26/2002 12:31:03 PM The Bush administration's push to win quick approval of a U.N. Security Council resolution against Iraq has bogged down because of haggling within the administration and allies, including the British, over its language, administration officials and diplomats said yesterday. 871. jexster - 9/26/2002 12:39:55 PM "The administration has stated that if I had understood the context in which the president made those remarks -- the remarks that Senate Democrats are not concerned about national security -- that I probably would not have been so critical," Daschle said. "Mr. President, what context is there that legitimizes an accusation of that kind? I don't care whether you are talking about homeland security, I don't think you can talk about Iraq, you can't talk about war, you can't talk about any context that justifies a political comment like that. This is politicization, pure and simple." 872. jexster - 9/26/2002 12:43:59 PM DOHA, Qatar, Sept. 20 — For more than a year, the lively television newsroom of Al Jazeera, filled with journalists from the Arab world and backed by Qatar, a little-known American ally in the Middle East, has caused angst in the Bush administration. In the event of a war against Iraq, it may be in a position to cause more. 873. jexster - 9/26/2002 1:09:15 PM "The sudden depths to which relations between the Bush administration and Europe's most important nation have plunged this week are a remarkable testament to the way that the rightwing Republican government in Washington now does things. But this is not a traditional American administration. It believes, according to the new White House national security strategy document it published at the weekend, that this is a world where there is just 'a single sustainable model for national success.' And that model is certainly not the German one. What is striking about the former German justice minister's famous remarks is not how ill-judged they were, but how restrained.... the point that Daubler-Gmelin actually made was not such an unreasonable one. Bush, she argued, 'wants to divert attention from his domestic problems. It's a classic tactic. It's one that Hitler used.' And Bismarck too, she might have added." 874. jexster - 9/26/2002 2:08:23 PM According To Plan -- But Whose Plan ? 875. joezan - 9/26/2002 2:10:55 PM More wishful thinking from jasper, I see. 876. RustlerPike - 9/26/2002 4:41:39 PM 877. concerned - 9/26/2002 7:06:52 PM Post war Hashemite Jordan/Iraq - a place where 'Palestinians' can roam 878. RustlerPike - 9/26/2002 10:20:37 PM Joe: 879. RustlerPike - 9/26/2002 10:25:28 PM Another thought: 880. joezan - 9/26/2002 10:33:52 PM Pike, you're a genius. 881. RustlerPike - 9/27/2002 12:39:06 AM joe: 882. RustlerPike - 9/27/2002 12:49:09 AM So when's the war, Joe? 883. Edmund Dantes - 9/27/2002 8:34:32 AM Only Saddam Hussein, and any would-be emulators, need fear George Bush's foreign policy 884. joezan - 9/27/2002 8:37:15 AM Pike: 885. alistairconnor - 9/27/2002 8:56:54 AM Sounds like Cruise has rather less smarts than the missiles of the same name. 886. Edmund Dantes - 9/27/2002 9:22:39 AM Well, I don't care what Cruise or Spielberg thinks about the war either. But: 887. Cellar Door - 9/27/2002 9:43:08 AM "Well, I don't care what Cruise or Spielberg thinks about the war either" 888. joezan - 9/27/2002 10:32:12 AM (If you're ever looking for cellardweller, just mention Tom Cruise). 889. Cellar Door - 9/27/2002 10:39:49 AM Don't mind me. 890. Edmund Dantes - 9/27/2002 10:53:55 AM LIAR! DELUSIONAL! 891. PelleNilsson - 9/27/2002 10:57:28 AM Cellar 892. concerned - 9/27/2002 11:09:28 AM Re. 885 - 893. concerned - 9/27/2002 11:13:36 AM As for AC's dismissal of Spielberg's mental faculties, I am just hurt. Especially considering how much of his ideological cohort's intellectual horizons were defined by his movies. 894. concerned - 9/27/2002 11:17:08 AM Not to mention Jerry Lewis and Walt Disney. 895. Cellar Door - 9/27/2002 11:49:33 AM Walt Disney was the only Hollywood filmmaker who came to greet Leni Riefenstahl when she came to town. 896. Edmund Dantes - 9/27/2002 12:43:22 PM Hey, what's wrong with caring what actors and directors think about Iraq? 897. Cellar Door - 9/27/2002 12:46:22 PM So what? 898. concerned - 9/27/2002 12:46:44 PM Now, there's a real brain trust. Meat and wood. 899. concerned - 9/27/2002 12:49:05 PM Hopefully, Bore didn't leave out Chelsea Clowntoon and Amy Cahtuh, either. 900. Cellar Door - 9/27/2002 2:31:11 PM How those Bush twins doing, connie? Still getting carded, or do they have their own private goon squad to keep them happily soused? 901. jexster - 9/27/2002 2:56:45 PM For the butter bar The Urban Operations Journal 902. joezan - 9/27/2002 3:09:07 PM I will add those later this evening. 903. Edmund Dantes - 9/27/2002 3:58:17 PM God (Bubba) to Moses (Jasper): Been a change in the game plan... 904. concerned - 9/27/2002 5:05:43 PM Hate to see ol' jexster eat all those words he wrote these last few months. He might just die from swelling of the brain pan, like that little girl did, from ingesting all that low content, high bulk verbiage. 905. jexster - 9/27/2002 9:10:06 PM "I am a man of peace. I want inspections to work." 906. jexster - 9/27/2002 9:10:12 PM "I am a man of peace. I want inspections to work." 907. jexster - 9/27/2002 9:10:33 PM So what? 908. jexster - 9/27/2002 9:13:15 PM When queried about the stupendous breadth of Gulf of Tonkin II, PantyWaist Powell aka "gamma girl" lamely replied, "Well, just because we've asked you to pass this Resolution doesn't mean that we're going to fight." 909. jexster - 9/27/2002 9:13:19 PM When queried about the stupendous breadth of Gulf of Tonkin II, PantyWaist Powell aka "gamma girl" lamely replied, "Well, just because we've asked you to pass this Resolution doesn't mean that we're going to fight." 910. jexster - 9/27/2002 9:14:21 PM hiccups from laughing so hard at Message # 904 and the whinny that preceded it. 911. joezan - 9/27/2002 9:27:03 PM Yeah, right. 912. jexster - 9/27/2002 11:00:27 PM I should be among the supporters of an invasion of Iraq. A decade ago, after Iraq seized Kuwait, I agreed with the decision to go to war and wrote in The New Republic, at the start of the conflict, that allied forces should go all the way to Baghdad. My view was that Saddam Hussein had forfeited the legitimacy of his regime, and, having resolved not to let his aggression stand, we ought to deny him any chance for revenge. When the first President Bush called off our attack, I was bitterly disappointed. 913. jexster - 9/27/2002 11:00:39 PM 914. jexster - 9/28/2002 12:14:01 AM Frankfurter-Allegemiene Weekly is the only English language German paper I know of that is available on the net. 915. jexster - 9/28/2002 12:32:20 AM BTW, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung's only article on the subject "German Businesss Fears Fallout from German-US Tension" 916. jexster - 9/28/2002 12:51:46 AM Ten, Twenty Years Dodging Snipers, Hundreds of Billions of Dollars? 917. jexster - 9/28/2002 3:18:37 AM Saddam Hussein's regime "is busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents," Vice President Dick Cheney told the Veterans of Foreign Wars in August, adding, "These are not weapons designed for the purpose of defending Iraq. These are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale." Billed by the White House as laying out the case for military action against Iraq, the speech employed the phrase "weapons of mass destruction" eight times. George W. Bush also regularly uses "weapons of mass destruction" as a collective term for chemical, biological, and atomic arms. In his 2002 State of the Union address, for example, the president stated that the United States would not "permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most dangerous weapons," citing chemical, biological, and atomic arms as equal concerns. 918. jexster - 9/28/2002 3:19:34 AM 919. jexster - 9/28/2002 3:20:17 AM Then there are atomic and nuclear devices--utterly, unmistakably "weapons of mass destruction."... The locations of his atomic-weapons facilities are known. Invasion or not, they can be destroyed, preventing him from inflicting mass death upon the innocent. 920. jexster - 9/28/2002 3:23:16 AM Kennedy is right...time to slow this madness down...write your MP. 921. jexster - 9/28/2002 3:23:43 AM toys 922. jexster - 9/28/2002 3:30:59 AM "These are not weapons designed for the purpose of defending Iraq. These are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale." 923. jexster - 9/28/2002 6:50:17 AM Daschle's Ire Over GOP Tactics May Toughen Posture on Iraq 924. jexster - 9/28/2002 7:21:01 AM Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl M. Levin (D-Mich) is drafting language that would requir
WASHINGTON
The trap is sprung. The name of the game is containment.
Contain the wild man, the leader with the messianic and relentless glint who is scaring the world.
Surround him, throw Lilliputian nets on him, tie him up with a lot of U.N. inspection demands, humor him long enough to stop him from using his weapons and blowing up the Middle East.
But this time, the object of the containment strategy is not Saddam Hussein, but George W. Bush, the president with real bombs, not the predator with plans to make them.
America's European and Arab allies now act more nervous about the cowboy in the Oval Office who likes to brag on America as "the greatest nation on the face of the Earth" than the thug in the Baghdad bunker.
Lemon Fizzes on the Banks of the Euphrates
Shakespeare didn't have him say that, did he?
Oops, pants agained. Can't put lipstick on that pig, aw shit.
You need to do a better job of blending Nolte and Dubya's hair.
This guy probably got his Shakespeare confused with his Nostrodamus.
But I suppose PE would know, if he strolled by here.
You might have found this for yourself if you had used Google but I'm sure even had you done so, you'd not admit the quote was properly attributed.
ARF, ARF, ARF!
Do you know how to Google, judy?
You're getting hits on various people's critiques of Shakespeare's work - you might have found this for yourself if you had any idea what you're talking about, and if you'd let those Manhattans alone till at least dinnertime.
grrrrr...arf,arf!
I'll leave you to your smug-little-bastard talk now, Joezy. Your Ace lust has gone to your pointed little head.
Pffftttttttt.....YEAH ------RIGHT!
You made the mistake in jumping to the conclusion it meant the play, not I. Did you even go back to the original post Wiz made? I did, obviously. You...who knows?
From an observant poster in TT:
"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind.... And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded with patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader, and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar."
[From William Shakespeare's Julius Caesar]
Wiz's post said, "[From William Shakespeare's Julius Caesar]"
Are you daft?
As for misquoting, I seem to recall you were the biggest "wheedle" and "crawfisher" around here.
Where did Caesar say it? Not secondary sources. Where did he say it?
Don't point to other discussion boards on the net saying Caesar said it. There are some written works by Caesar. Is it in one of them?
Of course, Caesar wouldn't have spoken English, but the word patriotism is a relatively recent coinage--post Shakespeare.
I am mistaken in one part of my claim, that Wiz's post didn't say Shakespeare. Sorry. I stand by the rest of my posts, however.
You did? Didn't improve your memory, though, did it?
I frankly don't care anymore where or if he said it at all. You have sucked all interest out of any of it for me.
I was wrong, okay? I admitted it. Get over yourselves. Rush over and tell Ace all about it; I'm sure you'll gain a ton of favor with him.
Well, that's nice, judith. But no one took issue with the rest of your posts.
Boy - that was some observant poster!
What was he observing, Monty Python?
Like Jasper and Wiz.
Should we count the number of anti-Bush posts on this thread versus pro-Bush?
Is this another post you're willing to stand behind?
Wanh, wanh, wanh.
The New American Imperium -
Statement of Principles (6/1997)
I ALWAYS give a fig about AcieWasie.....kissus fatman
We care a lot
We care a lot about disasters, fires, floods and killer bees
about Los Angeles falling in the sea
about starvation and the food that Live Aid bought
about disease, baby, Rock Hudson, Rock Yeah!
We care a lot
We care a lot
We care a lot about the gamblers and the pushers and the freaks
about the people who live off the street
about the welfare of all the boys and girls
about you people cause we're out to save the world
Yeah!
(chorus) And it's a dirty job but someone's got to do it!
We care a lot about the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines
about the NY, SF, and LAPD
about you people, about your guns
about the wars you're fighting
gee, that looks like fun
We care a lot about the Cabbage Patch, The Smurfs, and DMC
about Madonna and we cop for Mr.T
about the little things, the bigger things we top
about you people, yeah, you bet we care a lot
(chorus) And it's a dirty job but someone's gotta do it....
Security Councilrefuses to raise the ante on Iraq
Sad - am Puts Boy Blunder in Bind
Not to mention what he did to my good buddy TD!
Sorry bout dat Thomas
the quote is indeed from Julius Ceasar and has been used by people as disparate as Theodore Roosevelt and Adolph Hitler.
Of course it wasn't used by Hitler and Roosewelt. The "connection" is that their names appear on the same html-page as the quote and thus turn up in the Google search.
Public Supports Bush Positions on U.N. Involvement in Iraq
President Bush's job approval rating is now at 70%, marking the first time since late July that it has been at that level or higher.
Would you favor or oppose sending American ground troops to the Persian Gulf in an attempt to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq? 
The UN is itself in the box because it's left saying now that "No additional resolutions are necessary because existing resolutions already cover the situation." Fine, when we act, we'll be acting under existing resolutions (as Clinton claimed during Desert Fox). When we keep up the pressure and make it clear that the Iraq offer is insufficient, the UN may even decide to pass a new resolution to placate us.
As I already posted, the obvious fallacy of thinking this offer changes anything is not realizing that if you can't trust Saddam's word that he has no weapons, you can't trust his word that he'll allow unimpeded access, either.
Like this: 
In this context, what exactly do you mean by "the UN"?
REGIME CHANGE BEGINS AT HOME!
If it becomes necessary, Bush will do what Clinton did in 1998: take military action to enforce existing UN resolutions (which the UN has now emphasized are still in force).
Prove the quotes on this page are false, Edmond Asswipe and instead of trying to undermine the poster, try to address the f**king issues--especially the ones these quotes imply with regard to the WimpChimp.
Adolph Hitler, My New World Order, Proclamation to the German Nation at Berlin, February 1, 1933
"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar."
Julius Caesar.
Now I know you may know all of Shakespeare but I doubt you know every single speech made by Hitler. Though I certainly could be wrong and am not ashamed to admit it when I am.
Masters Of War
So let us talk about the SC and the permanent members instead of the nebulous "the UN". From the US perspective, the UK is on board. France will probably come along after the mandatory posturing. China can be persuaded to abstain and nobody could care less. This leaves Russia which will exact a price for going along. My hunch is that the price will involve Georgia.
Former Sec'y of State Henry Kissinger speaking at Evian, France, May 21, 1992 Bilderburgers meeting. Unbeknownst to Kissinger, his speech was taped by a Swiss delegate to the meeting.
Yep, sounds like a reliable page to me.
This is exactly the page I referred to. Go back and look at it. It is a collection of warlike sayings. There is a quote from Adolph Hitler, My New World Order, Proclamation to the German Nation at Berlin, February 1, 1933. Following that, is the quote from Julius Caesar. There is no connection between the Hitler and Caesar quotes except that they are on the same web page. Contrary to your claim there is absolutely no indication that Hitler used the Caesar quote. And in 1933 it would anyhow had been extraordinarily stupid of him to do so. 
If they have in mind something more than that, we can make things difficult for them, but we probably can't stop that either.
What we really have to do to get the Russians on board is sweeten the Iraq situation itself for them. They plainly don't want an American-installed government there that shuts them out compared with the current privileges they enjoy.
We should be so lucky that all they ask for is a free-hand with Chechen rebels in Georgia. 
With our children at our feet
And the morals that they worship will be gone
And the men who spurred us on
Sit in judgement of all wrong
They decide and the shotgun sings the song
(Chorus)
I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
The change, it had to come
We knew it all along
We were liberated from the fold, that's all
And the world looks just the same
And history ain't changed
'Cause the banners, they are flown in the next war
(Chorus)
I'll move myself and my family aside
If we happen to be left half alive
I'll get all my papers and smile at the sky
Though I know that the hypnotized never lie
Do ya?
There's nothing in the streets
Looks any different to me
And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye
And the parting on the left
Are now parting on the right
And the beards have all grown longer overnight
(Chorus)
Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss...
Public Supports Bush Positions on U.N. Involvement in Iraq, claims Dantès.
Well, let's see : blowhard Bush has been ranting about a regime change, with or without UN approval. The US public says :
* the United States should send ground troops to Iraq only if the United Nations supports that action,
46%
* the United States should send ground troops to Iraq even if the United Nations opposes that action,
37%
* the United States should not send ground troops to Iraq at all
14%
So, let's see : a phenomenal 37% of the US Public Supports Bush Positions on U.N. Involvement in Iraq.
I can't leave you for a second young lady!
Curses Batman! Boy Blunder Foiled Again
Conduis, soutiens nos bras vengeurs
Now we know just how vicious Saddam Hussein can be. Agreeing to unconditional United Nations inspections at a time when our president had his heart set on war is just the sort of mean-spirited treachery that one can expect from this modern-day Hitler.
The only greater betrayal will be if it turns out, upon inspection, that Iraq is not still building weapons of mass destruction and has no nuclear capability after all.
(with an assist from Rummy)
Eddie, I won't tell if you don't.
"After Rumsfeld's visit to Baghdad in 1983, U.S. intelligence began supplying the Iraqi dictator with satellite photos showing Iranian deployments... Over the protest of some Pentagon skeptics, the Reagan administration began allowing the Iraqis to buy a wide variety of 'dual use' equipment and materials from American suppliers. According to confidential Commerce Department export-control documents obtained by NEWSWEEK, the shopping list included a computerized database for Saddam's Interior Ministry (presumably to help keep track of political opponents); helicopters to transport Iraqi officials; television cameras for 'video surveillance applications'; chemical-analysis equipment for the Iraq Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC), and, most unsettling, numerous shipments of 'bacteria/fungi/protozoa' to the IAEC [which] could be used to make biological weapons, including anthrax... The helicopters, some American officials later surmised, were used to spray poison gas on the Kurds."
Now all we have to worry about is that Big Mowf TDaschole.
Actually, that's the headline on the story.
Well, let's see : blowhard Bush has been ranting about a regime change, with or without UN approval.
Apparently you don't read too closely, because the statistics you cite are about sending ground troops, not about regime change. So they're pretty irrelevant to the point you're trying to make
In any case, part of the breakdown has to do with the wording. Given three choices, many people want to be moderate and take the middle. The fact remains that 83 percent of Americans according to the poll favor committing American ground troops to Iraq. That's not just military action, that's ground troops--muddy boots and all that entails. You'd be lucky to get 83 percent of Frenchies supporting ground troops in defense of Belgium. Hell, maybe not even Paris.
Not to mention that the question says "if the UN opposes"--not if the UN is neutral or waffles around and doesn't do anything. Eighty percent also think the UN hasn't been tough enough.
Along with the 14% who oppose ground troops in any case, that gives you 60% who oppose sending in ground troops without UN approval.
Given destruction of WMD is essential for Iraq to have economic sanctions lifted, it's highly unlikely they would keep inspectors out "on principle" while sanctions go on and on.
Your position is entirely stupid, anyway. You hate Bush so much you have to pretend he's worse than Saddam, so much that you think Saddam is actually an injured party.
Clown.
And you're probably right.
Initially, at least.
Despite the insane lefty contigent that's so over-represented at the Mote, if forced to choose between their president and the UN, Americans are going to choose 70 percent approval rating Bush versus 80 percent "not tough enough" UN.
Why do you think Daschle's even coming on board? Because he can read poll numbers.
The Economic Costs
of Going to War with Iraq 
Charles Knight
Attak Irak: How the War to Make Bush Believable Stacks Up Against Guidelines for Preemptive Counterproliferation USAF
Center on Counterproliferation.
Its a dirty job Judith but someone's gotta do it...80 flab asses and all
The Answer is NO & Blunder Boy Hasn't Got a Clue
From that Wacky Lefty Publication
The Financial Times
Dumb if he do, dumb if don't, damned either way...
The 1990-91 Gulf War, short as it was, toppled the U.S. into a severe recession that took years to recover from. Now even Bush-minion Lawrence Lindsey is admitting that the cost of a war will be $100-200 BILLION - a hit the U.S. cannot afford, despite the blatherings of rightwing wacko Paul O'Neill. Economic experts overseas say the current war is a far bigger risk to the US and global economy than 1991. The Fed now has less room for manuvering, while the objective of the war - a total regime change in Iraq - has the potential for unforetold disasters. In short, this war will cost Americans dearly, and not just in lives.
"Taking everything into account war with Iraq would almost inevitably mean a double-dip recession for the US," says Stephen Roach, economist at Morgan Stanley.
"The question is whether this is a price the US is willing to pay for its strategic objectives."
If anyone knows nukes, its the folks at the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists - an outfit founded by Albert Einstein. And they say that the evidence Bush is using to "prove" Saddam is near nukes actually proves just the opposite. The whole leaky case, they point out, is based on the alleged interception of a shipment of aluminum tubes to Iraq, a possible nuke component. The BOAS drily cautions, "Just a little tip for those assigned to leak additional new 'evidence' of a stepped-up Iraqi nuclear threat: The tubing in centrifuges is not nearly as hard to acquire or assemble as the mechanisms that allow them to spin at rapid speeds; getting that stuff right, and getting thousands of centrifuges working in concert, is really hard. Also, leakers, please note: Should you want to claim that an Iraqi cascade is already in operation, such a facility uses as much energy as a fairly large city; it could be detected by its heat signature alone."
This regimes runs on snake oil and wack jobs.
Hello Eddie!
Moreover, the profile of those who favor war versus those who oppose it increasingly resembles the electoral breakdown of the mid-1990s. The opponents are disproportionately women, minorities, senior citizens, the college-educated and residents of the Northeast, Midwest and Far West. The administration's core supporters are rural, white, male, southern Republicans without a college diploma. That's not a good recipe for building a national consensus and may not help the Republicans in November. Here, based on materials specially provided by polling organizations, is a rundown of who is opposing and who is supporting the administration's rush to war in Iraq.
Why Bush is Febrile with War Fever
The Poll Numbers..the Poll Numbers..the Poll Numbers He Never Looks At
Back to your sewer Eddie
Ha, ha, ha. Einstein's not alive, so if he did found it (which he didn't), that wouldn't have a whole lot to do with its operation today. The co-founders were Eugene I. Rabinowitch and Hyman Goldsmith. As for knowing "their stuff," the article is by Linda Rothstein, "editor." What are her credentials--other than being able to post stories on the Internet? Do you have any evidence showing she's even ever seen a nuclear weapon?
Well, we do have her "story":
Iraq had been using two methods: One program involved building giant “calutrons,” a clumsy technology the United States had abandoned in the 1940s. For decades that technology had been considered so primitive and inefficient that it was unlikely ever to be copied....It’s hard to say what an Iraqi success with this method would have meant....
Strange, but Linda doesn't mention that this was the technology used to build the bomb at Hiroshima. Despite your belief in her vast knowledge, she's also wrong that calutron use was abandoned by the U.S in the 1940s. Of course Oak Ridge National Laboratory isn't the authority Linda is on nukes. I can tell by the highly technical language she uses: "getting that stuff right, and getting thousands of centrifuges working in concert, is really hard."
Iraq was planning to build a 1,000-machine production cascade at Taji. Based on performance achieved by the Iraqis with their prototype centrifuge, IAEA estimated the potential output of a 1,000 centrifuge cascade at about ten kilograms of weapons-grade highly enriched uranium annually.
Note: 1,000 (not "thousands"). She can talk about "heat signatures" all she wants, but we know of other nations who have kept their weapons a "deniable" secret for years (South Africa, for one). Further, according to this report from Princeton about how to monitor for nuclear activity, she's again, well, wrong. You don't look for a heat signature with centrifuges:
Gaseous diffusion, aerodynamic, and electromagnetic separation plants are quite inefficient and release a large amount of heat. This might be detected by satellite observation or perhaps measurement of the temperature increase of a river if cooling water is dumped there. Centrifuge plants are much more energy efficient, but they place unusual loads on the electric power system. In particular, the centrifuges operate at high speed and require conversion of the line frequency to much higher frequency. The converters reflect a distinct signal back into the line that can be detected. Finally,under some conditions, the distinct noise generated by centrifuges might be detected and recognized.
Well, if we can plug into Iraq's power grid or send Saddam a lamp with a bug in it, we'll be in business, but doesn't sound like satellites are going to detect heat signatures for his centrifuges, despite Linda's assertion that they suck electrical juice like a city.
Mr. HAMZA: Look at the size of the program--will tell you. You have a couple of hundred in the biological, a few hundred in the chemical and 12,000 in the nuclear. What does--what does that tell you?
ROSE: Twelve thousand in nuclear?
Mr. HAMZA: Yes. Yeah.
ROSE: Today?
Mr. HAMZA: Yeah.
ROSE: Twelve thousand people ...
Mr. HAMZA: Yep. Yep. Increased.
ROSE: ... involved in the development of ...
Mr. HAMZA: Yeah, about 5,000 after the war--new appointments.
...
Mr. HAMZA: [M]y estimate would have been within six months-- probably two to six months.
ROSE: CIA thought you were at least 10 years away.
Mr. HAMZA: Yeah, right.
ROSE: How could they be so wrong?
Mr. HAMZA: I don't think, at the time, they cared enough or put enough resources to find out about the program. I don't think they knew enough about the program then to--to really evaluate it.
ROSE: US government officials now concede that before the Gulf War, they dangerously miscalculated the extent of Iraq's nuclear program. And the International Atomic Energy Agency, the IAEA--the group responsible for nuclear inspections in Iraq since 1970--admits it missed the bomb program altogether before the war.
....
Mr. HAMZA: Yes. Unless they remove him, he'll get the bomb, one way or the other. One thing about Saddam: He's constant. He never changes. What he wants is what he wants. And he keeps at it till he gets it. His enemy--he never forgive an enemy. He never give up a project. He never give up a plan. He has the capability. He can--he can do. He's a can-do guy.
Early in 1996, the former Lt. Gen. Majid returned to Iraq under a personal guarantee of safety from Saddam Hussein. He was murdered two days later.
U.S. Dept. of Energy
Listen doofis - the guy that negotiated the agreement with the UN said afterward that "unconditional" means that military sites can be inspected - but no schools, hospitals, or presidential palaces - some of his favorite hiding places.
This is not, under any circumstances, "unconditional", jasper.
A key piece of evidence in the Bush administration's case against Iraq is being challenged in a report by independent experts who question whether thousands of high-strength aluminum tubes recently sought by Iraq were intended for a secret nuclear weapons program.
The White House last week said attempts by Iraq to acquire the tubes point to a clandestine program to make enriched uranium for nuclear bombs. But the experts say in a new report that the evidence is ambiguous, and in some ways contradicts what is known about Iraq's past nuclear efforts.
The report, from the Institute for Science and International Security, also contends that the Bush administration is trying to quiet dissent among its own analysts over how to interpret the evidence. The report, a draft of which was obtained by The Washington Post, was authored by David Albright, a physicist who investigated Iraq's nuclear weapons program following the 1991 Persian Gulf War as a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency's inspection team. The institute, headquartered in Washington, is an independent group that studies nuclear and other security issues.
"By themselves, these attempted procurements are not evidence that Iraq is in possession of, or close to possessing, nuclear weapons," the report said. "They do not provide evidence that Iraq has an operating centrifuge plant or when such a plant could be operational."
Tonkin Gulf Resolution 2002:
Evidence on Iraq Challenged
Institute for Science & Int'l Security Experts Question if Tubes Were Meant for Weapons Program
Wag the dog..hot box the Congress...off we go...
You Call That Evidence?
The Bush administration has begun to produce what it calls evidence to support its claim that Iraq is moving very near a nuclear weapon capability. But a story in Sunday’s New York Times (September 8, 2002), especially as elaborated by administration officials on Sunday talk shows, actually suggests just the opposite—that Iraq is not as close as it was before the Gulf War.
In a front-page story, Times reporters Michael Gordon and Judith Miller write that they were told by administration officials that Iraq has been trying to buy specially designed aluminum tubes to be used to fabricate gas centrifuges in which to produce weapon-grade uranium.
How does that compare to what we know about the state of Iraq’s nuclear program in 1991?
After the Gulf War, U.N. Special Commission inspectors discovered that although Iraq had spent billions of dollars over nearly two decades, its efforts to produce weapon-grade uranium had basically come up empty.
Iraq had been using two methods: One program involved building giant “calutrons,” a clumsy technology the United States had abandoned in the 1940s. For decades that technology had been considered so primitive and inefficient that it was unlikely ever to be copied; everything anyone could want to know about it was available in the open literature. It’s hard to say what an Iraqi success with this method would have meant, but in any case, the calutrons were destroyed.
The second method—and certainly the modern method of choice—was to build a “cascade” of centrifuges to separate the fissile constituents of uranium from the non-fissile. A cascade consists of thousands of centrifuges, all of which must be able to withstand spinning at extraordinarily high speed.
Inspectors discovered that although the Iraqis had brought in centrifuge experts from Germany and purchased specialty steel from German and Swiss companies, they had spoiled most of the material—failing to shape it properly or otherwise maltreating it. Essentially, the Iraqi centrifuge program was a failure. And if the Iraqis were to depend on producing weapon material through the centrifuge process—rather than trying to obtain it on the black market—experts say it would probably take five or six years.
Now we are expected to believe that Iraq is closer to a nuclear weapon capability because it is starting all over again! Admittedly, this time Iraq is trying to get different materials with which to construct the centrifuges—and perhaps they hope to save time by getting it preformed as tubes.
Inspectors discovered that although the Iraqis had brought in centrifuge experts from Germany and purchased specialty steel from German and Swiss companies, they had spoiled most of the material—failing to shape it properly or otherwise maltreating it. Essentially, the Iraqi centrifuge program was a failure. And if the Iraqis were to depend on producing weapon material through the centrifuge process—rather than trying to obtain it on the black market—experts say it would probably take five or six years.
Now we are expected to believe that Iraq is closer to a nuclear weapon capability because it is starting all over again! Admittedly, this time Iraq is trying to get different materials with which to construct the centrifuges—and perhaps they hope to save time by getting it preformed as tubes.
These comments, of course, raise more questions than they answer. First, just who is the “we” Cheney refers to? The U.S. government? An ally? In any case, it is someone who has no name. This story certainly leaves the rest of us wondering if anyone has made an effort to find out anything about the possible supplier or suppliers, because of their potential violation of treaties forbidding the export of weapons-usable industrial items.
Things got murkier after Condoleezza Rice’s appearance on CNN’s Late Edition. Although her discussion of the issue was more general, her remarks were more in line with the Times story; she said “we” knew about a series of shipments of tubes.
How strange is a story in which one official argues the case of a single shipment while others say there have been a number of shipments, yet no one expresses any interest in the source? Are the same unnamed but all-knowing “we” not at all interested in asking alleged suppliers what they think they’re doing, or bringing any pressure on them to cut it out? And why hasn’t anyone in the media been able to tease out a single bit of independent, corroborating information?
(And just a little tip for those assigned to leak additional new “evidence” of a stepped-up Iraqi nuclear threat: The tubing in centrifuges is not nearly as hard to acquire or assemble as the mechanisms that allow them to spin at rapid speeds; getting that stuff right, and getting thousands of centrifuges working in concert, is really hard. Also, leakers, please note: Should you want to claim that an Iraqi cascade is already in operation, such a facility uses as much energy as a fairly large city; it could be detected by its heat signature alone. [The previous sentence is incorrect, and should not have been included. Separating uranium by a gaseous diffusion method, not the centrifuge enrichment process, uses large quantities of electricity. I apologize for the error. —L.R.])
The aluminum tubing story—and others to come—may be taken at face value by an insufficiently skeptical press, but the decision to go to war is simply too important to let the administration “wing it” in presenting its rationale.
As Jon Stewart of the Daily Show asked recently about the administration’s attitude toward the American public, “Do they think we’re retarded?”
To where, to what end, they haven't a clue...
Neither do they have a justification for pre-emptive aggression.
Which is why we are having a war scare.
War: Karl Rove's ultimate wedge issue 
If Jasper continues to repost his same inaccurate blather over and over, I'll feel entitled to do the same with my responses.
Once again, you err. According to his bio, David Albright is a contributing editor to the Bulletin, so you're not quoting a different "outfit" in your new source.
"By themselves, these attempted procurements are not evidence that Iraq is in possession of, or close to possessing, nuclear weapons...
Of course not. If it was possible to know everything about Iraq's program without inspectors, we wouldn't need inspectors. Idiot. It's a clue. We also have Iraq's past record and the fact they haven't allowed inspectors in for four years. We have the testimony of Iraq defectors.
We have David Albright.
From September 1991:
"The high-stakes shell game Iraq has played with its clandestine nuclear program is coming to an end. While not all information has been gathered by a U.N. Special Commission responsible for finding and eliminating Iraq's nuclear weapons capabilities, officials involved in the effort are confident here will be no surprises as great as those of the last few months-especially the revelation that Iraq may have been as close as a few years from possession of nuclear weapons."
"Has Iraq Finally Come Clean?" Notice that this was after David was sure there'd be no "new suprises."
The past four-plus years have been frustrating for Western nuclear sleuths who have tried to get the whole story of Iraq's nuclear weapons program. The Iraqis have cooperated at times, especially when backed into a corner. But in general, they have stalled, obfuscated, covered up, and even lied about the extent of the program....
All of this information suggests that, had the Gulf War not intervened, Iraq could have assembled a small nuclear arsenal composed of relatively crude enriched-uranium implosion-type weapons within a few years, perhaps by 1996. It seems likely that Iraq would have used gas centrifuges to produce the weapon-grade uranium, not its electromagnetic isotope separators or "calutrons" as inspectors first believed....
Regardless of the slow pace of its nuclear weapons program, Iraq had progressed far enough by January 1991 that it could rapidly reconstitute its program if the international community relaxes its guard....
The fact that the Iraqi nuclear weapons program was making only slow progress before the war or during the crash program should not be interpreted as suggesting that Iraq will not be a serious proliferation threat in the future. If sanctions are removed, the international community will face a formidable challenge to insure that Iraq does not revive its nuclear effort.
Do they think we're retarded?
"One must recognize that sanctions alone cannot prevent Iraq from acquiring nuclear weapons, nor can sanctions lead to a workable strategy if Iraq succeeds in acquiring such weapons. Absent Iraqi cooperation in allowing inspections to resume, it is prudent to assume that something untoward is going on in Iraq. Iraqi claims to the contrary are not credible if left untested, given Saddam Hussein's track record. The mere possession of nuclear weapons by Iraq would have disastrous regional and global effects, inevitably drawing the United States into military confrontation."
in the future...may somehow..maybe somedday....remove sanctions...
So what exactly is your point? That there never WAS any threat either "imminent" "gathering" or "grave"? That Bush was lying when just a week ago he claimed to want UN resolutions enforced? The resolutions with the sanctions in them?
Put that in Tariq Aziz's cigar and smoke it.
By the way, why aren't you familiar with all these articles by Dave--they were published in the Bulletin for Atomic Scientists?
I do know that there is substantial doubt that what Bush is telling us is not true
I know that Bush is trying a bums rush to prevent us finding out what is true
Also know that there is no reason, no threat to international or regional security that warrants war any time soon, and also know that the Bushies have not produced and cannot produce a scintilla of evidence to the contrary
Be honest. You don't actually believe most of the stuff you post here, do you?
And isn't it about time you followed Daschle's lead, gave up on the Iraq thing, and started focusing on the economy again?
The elections are only a few weeks away.
If it makes you feel better: BUSH IS NOT WORSE THAN SAD-am...he's smarter, he's got more balls, but to me Saddam is basically like Bedbug Eddy from the Pope of Greenwich Village writ large
Makes no difference...Saddam is not an imminent threat to the peace, GWB is
And he is dishonest, he immoral, and he is the US President.
He did nothing to refute their charges, which incidentally were two different criticisms on the same issue.
As for his repetition about Dr. Hamza, you haven't been following the discussion, for if you had, you will note that the CIA, the ISS, the Carnegie Endowment (including Amb Ekeus) who all have interviewed Hamza, do not support his conclusion.
And my point, since I am not an atomic scientist, and have no first hand knowledge of the facts, indeed only third fourth fifth hand knowledge, my point is this...that there is sufficient doubt, nay overwhelming doubt that Iraq has will soon have much less be able to deliver any nuclear weapons anywhere
But at any rate, I've told Eddie this several days ago...
The Bush administration apparently wants to silence Albright, and the Bush Administration has not updated the National Defense Intelligence Estimate for two years now....a fact I also pointed out some days ago...
NDIE's contain dissenting views...in case you didn't know or remember from my prior posts on this subject...
Between September 14 and 16, thousands demonstrated against a new U.S. war on Iraq, in Emergency Actions called by the A.N.S.W.E.R.
(Act Now to Stop War & End Racism) Coalition. Protests took place in Washington D.C., San Francisco, Oakland, Los Angeles, San Luis
Obispo, Seattle, Fresno and other cities.
In Washington DC, over 100 protesters arrived at 8 am to picket outside of the hotel where over 100 military contractors were buying and selling their latest weapons of mass destruction and Donald Rumsfeld was set to be their honored guest.
On the West Coast, 3,000 marched in San Francisco, 2,000 in Los Angeles, and many more in other cities.
The Emergency Actions were initiated as part of A.N.S.W.E.R.'s campaign to Stop the War on Iraq Before it Starts, which will culminate with the National March in Washington DC and joint action
in San Francisco, set for October 26, which will be a massive national mobilization.
Now THERE's a idea, Ace. That can be done too, or at least I had an electrician do just that in disproving a defendant's allegations about manufacturing operations in a case last year.
But that requires inspections
"This is not about inspections" -WH 9/17/02
Its not about Iraqi nukes.
Its not about VX gas
Its not about threats to neighbors
Its not about the plight of the Kurds
Its not about the plight of the Iraqi people.
Its about what Richard Perle SAID it was about.
Not a good idea...as you saw on the Sopranoes.
Bada Bing
Council on October 8, 1997, (S/1997/779) provides a comprehensive summary of the IAEA activities and findings regarding the investigation, destruction, removal, and rendering harmless of significant components of Iraq’s clandestine nuclear weapons program.
In this report the IAEA concluded, inter alia, that its mandated activities had resulted in a coherent picture of Iraq’s program; that there were no indications of Iraq having achieved its program goal of producing a nuclear
weapon; nor were there any indications that there remained in Iraq any physical capability for the production of amounts of weapons-usable nuclear material of any practical significance.
These conclusions were recorded in conjunction with the recognition that some uncertainty is inevitable in any countrywide technical verification process that seeks to ensure the absence of readily concealable items or activities. At the time of reporting, it was the IAEA view that the few remaining uncertainties did not detract from its ability to implement effectively its plan for the ongoing monitoring and verification (OMV) of Iraq’s compliance with its undertaking not to acquire or develop
nuclear weapons or weapons-usable nuclear materials or their related activities and facilities. It was also the IAEA view that the investigation of the remaining uncertainties, or any other matter that may come to light, was provided for and could be accomplished within the scope of the OMV plan. Nothing arose to change these views from
October 1997 to December 1998.
Everything that has been reported "to have arisen" since 1998, when the inspectors left is based on leaked information, partial information, information of disputed integrity, information that can be verified, supplemented, or contradicted by inspections.
"this is not about inspections"
Incidentally, Saddam is far worse than Milosevic. 
or you can deal with what's in front of you...
Flame fest you say?
That's flame... but I shall hold my fire..
How many people did Saddam chase out of their homes in Iraq before and after the Gulf War?
Has Milosevic gassed anyone? Has Milosevic started two major wars that led to at least a million casualties, many of them civilians?
Gulf War I? UN Resolution 657, 1287.
nuff said about that...wouldn't want to "spam" or "flame"
Arming the Arms Inspectors - Carnegie OpEd, NyT & my view since 1998
You are correct to be suspicious...as for my view of two evils and how to deal with them, and more specifically whether resort to war is required now v. Kosovo, my position again has always been transparent, oft stated, and oft scoffed at and it has nothing whatever to do with who is in power for if it did I would not have supported either GWI or the War on the Talibees as I did, and in each case, my view turns on
- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
- there must be serious prospects of success;
- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine.
- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
For the United States, the costs of such a war include the death of soldiers, economic losses caused by the effect of soaring oil prices on a fragile stock market, the need to post tens of thousands of troops in Iraq for many years, lingering resentment among allies whose cooperation we need and the near certainty of creating legions of new terrorists who hate America. For the United Nations, the result would be a terrible defeat, an admission of weakness and of its inability to impose its writ on a villain. For the world as a whole, the costs will include the deaths of innocent Iraqis, increased repression in Arab states coping with domestic political anger and possibly chaos in the region.
That is the short list. Mathews OpEd
Further if the UN determines as is likely a mechanism for enforcement of its resolutions that Bush rejects in favor of war, any claim that he may have to legitimacy vanishes and every death in my view becomes a murder.
Though you don't deserve a response, I will give you one anyway.
I believe there is a serious threat to the US from wmd being smuggled into this country. Anyone who thinks that scenario is an impossible fantasy is an idiot.
While it could be argued that Saddam himself would not be particularly interested in handing such weapons over to Islamist suicide cells, since, as theocrats, such groups don't much care for Baathist secularism and might use said weapons against Baghdad, not all suicde bombers are driven by religious reasons, witness some of the Palestinian kids who vaporize themselves and blow faces off Jews in Israel.
Frankly, I don't think any Arab country (or Iran), as presently governed, should be permitted to develop the bomb. And certainly not Iraq.
I have not suddenly been spooked by Bush's advisors into worrying about this matter. I have been concerned about nukes being smuggled into this country for a couple of decades, back when our current president wasn't sober.
As I have posted before, Sen. Lugar and others raised this issue a very long time ago.
After 9/11, we are finally beginning to take it seriously. Sorry you're not on board yet.
But it doesn't fit your agenda, which has nothing to do with the antiwar movement, but everything to do with the Democrat Party.
I am an idiot..
Not even Cheney is claiming a threat to the US yet you persist in this nonsense.
But I am not alone in my idiocy I assure you.
I think you are a paranoid
So there/
At bottom it requires me to believe that you are rational and Hussein isn't!
Which of course undermines the hawk argument that Saddam only responds to a credible threat of destruction which if correct means he is rational and you aren't
FLAME
Yes, you are an idiot then. Or else you don't bother to read posts before responding to them.
I have not claimed that Saddam has packed a nuke into a container headed to New York. I don't think he has them yet, and I'm not sure he himself would ever try to do such a thing, though I would not put it past him.
And if you are saying that Dick Cheney has not said that Saddam is about to smuggle a bomb into New York, you are correct.
But if you are suggesting that Senators Warner and Schumer do not have a bill to dramatically increase radiation detection at America's ports so as to intercept a possible nuclear device someday, you are not correct.
The point, which you miss or ignore, is that nuclear proliferation in the Middle East is an extremely dangerous proposition for America's safety, and especially so if that development takes place in a country run by a U.S.-hating psycho, a country that may be even more unstable in the hands of a Baathist successor to Saddam, hence the reasonable attractiveness of regime change there now, dicated by the UN if possible, by the US and UK alone, if necessary.
The threat of nuclear weapons and other wmd being used against the US is entirely real.
But, probably, in the end, you're just a fool.
Operative language:
``all means he determines to be appropriate, including force, in order to enforce the United Nations Security Council resolutions (on disarmament), defend the national security interests of the United States against the threat posed by Iraq and restore international peace and security in the region.''
I neither miss nor ignore the problemsee Message # 604, I just don't overstate it to the point of paranoia, I don't believe Saddam is psychotic and I believe that the evidence and indeed the very premise of those who argue so strenuously for war now flatly contradicts it
I believe that Saddam would like a bomb...I believe he would like an arsenal such as the US has...I believe taht there is no nation state in the middle east that believes as you do, not even Israel
I believe that there exists a morally sound, and prudentially wise alternative to deal with a real problem
I believe that you are frenzied to the point of being irrational
I do not believe that any member state of the UN has the authority to enforce UN resolutions on their own motion...I don't believe that Eygpt or Syria had that right in 1973, don't believe the US/Britain have that right now...
I believe that last week's UN speech was a charade
I believe everything I say
...
A Message from the United Methodist "Idiots"
And the reason is this - in both cases the threat was "grave and imminent" in both cases, all means short of war were exhausted, in neither case did the use of force unleash disorders more grave than that sought to be remedied
In this case, no substantial argument exists on these points and none has been made
Furthermore, even if I WAS wrong then, and assuming for the sake of arugument I was wrong in my evaluation, no one around here at least has challenged my evaluation of just war now for indeed they cannot and the US Conference of Catholic bishops just a few days ago confirmed my judgment correct...a sermon I have been preaching for weeks.
So you have the criteria I use...have at it
David Albright
President, Institute for Science and
International Security
Cooperated with IAEA Iraq
Action Team from 1992 to 1997
If the Security Council passes a resolution authorizing the use of force if Iraq fails to comply with inspections, the US and its allies invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam, how then would this violate just war theory? US doctrine has been to minimize civilian casualties, Saddam's military will most likely crumple quickly--indeed the only likely high casualty event would be Saddam using what WMD he has, either against the invading forces or against Israel. One could argue that even in a divided and conflict prone Iraq, Iraqis would benefit from no longer being ruled by Saddam.
That's Bush keeps changing the argument for it and why when all said and done around here, we hear nothing much from Ace other than "you hate bush so much you like Saddam more" and more unholy garbage than the 100 degree temperatures in SF will permit me to deal with now...
Pigshit looks for pretext..keep lookin
Charismatic Schrِder turns the tide
By Roger Boyes
All the signs are that the Chancellor’s Social Democrats, lagging a hopeless 7 per cent behind early this summer, will emerge as the strongest party on Sunday evening
I shared with Allistair my hunch that Chirac had Blair in his sights when giving his interview to the NyT....
My hunch is lookin good
Have I ever shared this with you Wombat?
hheheheheehe
George Bush is a geopolitical incompetent. He has allowed a clique of hawks to induce him to take a position on invading Iraq from which he cannot extract himself, one that will have nothing but negative consequences for the United States - and the rest of the world. He will find himself badly hurt politically, perhaps fatally. And he will rapidly diminish the already declining power of the US in the world.
A war against Iraq will destroy many lives immediately, both Iraqi and American.
Invading Iraq will lead to a degree of turmoil in the Arab-Islamic world hitherto unimagined.
How has America become trapped in such a disastrous cul-de-sac?
Bush promised the American people a "war on terrorism" that "we will certainly win". So far, all he's produced is the downfall of the weak and impoverished Taliban. He hasn't captured Osama bin Laden. Pakistan is shaky. Saudi Arabia is pulling away. If he doesn't invade Iraq, he will look foolish where it matters to him most - in the eyes of American voters.
Bush's incredibly high approval ratings reflect his being a "war president". The minute he becomes a peace-time president, he will be in grave trouble - all the more so because of failed wartime promises.
So, Bush has no choice. He will invade Iraq. He has made clear the Middle East crisis will not deter him from this. Quite the opposite. And we shall all live with the consequences.
Bernard Trainor to Jexster...
Urban warfare is indeed grim. Since WWII, we have only had to do it twice, when the Marines captured Seoul in Sept. 1950 during the Korean war and again when the Marines liberated Hue during the Vietnamese Tet offensive of 1968. Both caused terrible casualties and I personally lost five good friends between the two actions.
Wish me luck Wombat
Semper Fi
You did not answer my question, though. Given the conditions stated above (UN resolution, Iraqi failure to allow unfettered inspection, a quick war, even without a stable post Saddam Iraq), your use of the just war argument against overthrowing Saddam is arguably wrong.
USA Today
Even those "most pessimistic conclusions from ambiguous evidence" are modest by comparison with Ronski's pathetic rascism and paranoia....
No shit.
But I am not alone in my idiocy I assure you.
Never had any doubts.
Given the volume he posts, even if most of those posts appear multiple times, how could he possibly be anything but sloppy and uncritical?
Is that a question or just more cum stained dress drivel?
That wasn't a question.
"this isn't about inspections" White House Press Office 9/17
"You can take the country into a war pretty fast but you can't get out as quickly, and the public needs to know what the risks are." Sen Chuck Hagel
Wombat..didn't mean to give short shrift to your Message # 620 for it is the first attempt at a "just war" justification around here. I have copied an will respond when the fog nears the coast again.
Now Ace can continue to offer himself in sacrifice to my proof that the current frenzy is a politically motivated dupe, pigshit in search of pretext, but we really don't need you Ace to do that...Bush has done an excellent job as I have chronicled for you several times and will do so again...
Keep the corn pone crack pot slime jobs coming...I get bored with substance...and you are the best of the cum stained dress bunch that I have seen....
BODY:
MOSCOW, Sept. 19 (Xinhua) --Iraqi Ambassador to Russia Abbas Khalaf said Thursday that the Iraqi government would allow weapons inspectors from the U.N. and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to any facilities they would wish to visit.
"I state with all responsibility that international inspectors will be provided with free access to all facilities they request to visit. We expect international inspectors to work honestly and count on interaction with them," Khalaf said in an interview published in Thursday's Rossiiskaya Gazeta newspaper.
"Iraq has no nuclear program as such, and all nuclear research in Iraq has been phased out," the ambassador stressed.
Go for it ...
But this isn't about weapons inspections, its not about Iraqi connections with Al Qaeda, its not about the integrity of the UN, its not even about the boogey man under pitiable Ronski's bed.
2) We expect international inspectors to work honestly and count on interaction with them. Uh-huh...no sub-text there.
3) Iraq has no nuclear program as such, and all nuclear research in Iraq has been phased out.
None there either.
They can put all the lipstick they want on this pig - it ain't flyin'.
But seriously - doesn't his hair look darker?
For those who believed that this adventure had anything to do with anything other than Bush's poll numbers and credibilty,
"The failure to take on Saddam after what the president said would produce such a collapse of confidence in the president that it would set back the war on terrorism"
He's damned if he does, and we are all fucked WHEN, not if he does.
What does he think we're all retards?
What about Pelle, dowager empress of the Mote....I think you have some reading to catch up on, international politics lesson...
Smarmy fuck 
Elite forces from Iraq's Republican Guard may not be called upon to protect Saddam Hussein in the event of an American attack - for fear that they might turn against him.
The Iraqi leader is determined to keep his crack troops out of Baghdad where their tanks and heavy weaponry could be used to overthrow the regime rather than defend it, the Guardian has learned.
Jasper'll be there to defend him.
I liked this:
In addition, there is the Saddam Fedayyeen, a thug militia run by President Saddam's elder son, Udai, which specialises in internal repression - such as cutting off tongues and beheading prostitutes.
"Dr Hans Blix, the head of the United Nations agency charged with disarming Iraq, was due to brief the Security Council on his discussions with the Iraqis on Tuesday night when, according to diplomats, Iraqi officials failed to provide guarantees that inspectors would be able to work freely. Dr Blix is said to have presented the Iraqis with a detailed list of demands for logistical support once the inspectors started work.
"But the Iraqi officials declined to offer any answers, saying that they had to check with Baghdad."
"Iraq will have 3 nuclear bombs by 2005" 
National Network to
End The War
Against Iraq
Gulf of Tonkin II
The Prime Minister told a German newspaper that the British Government’s aim was to deal with Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction, as it emerged that Britain and the US are seeking an early test of Iraq’s apparent offer to allow the unconditional return of weapons inspectors.
Chirac Had His Sights Set on Blair
When he said, "its the world against Bush."
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops:
Serious Moral Questions
with the REAL seat of power in the Bush foreign policy mish mash...
Falwell's Liberty University - Dept. of International Relations: KILL! KILL! KILL! 
Hail Bush:
A new Roman empire
September 20 2002 - Sydney Morning Herald
They came, they saw, they conquered. Now the United States dominates the world. With the rise of the New Age Roman empire, how long before the fall?
The word of the hour is empire. As the United States marches to war, no other label quite seems to capture the scope of American power or the scale of its ambition. "Sole superpower" is accurate enough, but seems oddly modest. "Hyperpower" might appeal to the French; "hegemon" is favoured by academics. But empire is the big one, the gorilla of geopolitical designations - and suddenly the US is bearing its name.
Of course, enemies of the US have shaken their fist at its "imperialism" for decades: they are doing it again now, as Washington wages a global "war against terror" and braces itself for a campaign aimed at "regime change" in a foreign, sovereign state. What is more surprising, and much newer, is that the notion of a US empire has suddenly become a live debate inside the US. And not just among Europhile liberals either, but across the range - from left to right. 
Annan bows
In a week when the Bush administration called Iraq the "greatest threat to the world" and Iraqi President Saddam Hussein insisted that he had no weapons of mass destruction, the Security Council is left to ferret out some form of truth. It's at this pivotal moment that could be the difference between peace and war that Annan is stepping back into the shadows.
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. President:
At its meeting last week, the 60-member Administrative Committee the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops asked me to write you about the situation in Iraq. We welcome your efforts to focus the world's attention on the need to address Iraq's repression and pursuit of weapons of mass destruction in defiance of the United Nations. The Committee met before your speech at the United Nations, but I thought it was important that I express our serious questions about the moral legitimacy of any preemptive, unilateral use of military force to overthrow the government of Iraq.
A year ago, my predecessor Bishop Joseph Fiorenza wrote you about the U.S. response to the horrific attacks we commemorated last week. He told you then that, in our judgment, the use of force against Afghanistan could be justified, if it were carried out in accord with just war norms and as one part of a much broader, mostly non-military effort to deal with terrorism.
The United States and the international community have two grave moral obligations: to protect the common good against any Iraqi threats to peace and to do so in a way that conforms with fundamental moral norms. We have no illusions about the behavior or intentions of the Iraqi government. The Iraqi leadership must cease its internal repression, end its threats to its neighbors, stop any support for terrorism, abandon its efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction, and comply with UN resolutions. Mobilizing the nations of the world to recognize and address Iraq's threat to peace and stability through new UN action and common commitment to ensure that Iraq abides by its commitments is a legitimate and necessary alternative to the unilateral use of military force. Your decision to seek UN action is welcome, but other questions of ends and means must also be answered.
There are no easy answers. People of good will may apply ethical principles and come to different prudential judgments, depending upon their assessment of the facts at hand and other issues. We conclude, based on the facts that are known to us, that a preemptive, unilateral use of force is difficult to justify at this time. We fear that resort to force, under these circumstances, would not meet the strict conditions in Catholic teaching for overriding the strong presumption against the use of military force. Of particular concern are the traditional just war criteria of just cause, right authority, probability of success, proportionality and noncombatant immunity.
Just cause. What is the casus belli for a military attack on Iraq? The Catechism of the Catholic Church, reflecting widely accepted moral and legal limits on why military force may be used, limits just cause to cases in which "the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations [is] lasting, grave and certain." (#2309) Is there clear and adequate evidence of a direct connection between Iraq and the attacks of September 11th or clear and adequate evidence of an imminent attack of a grave nature? Is it wise to dramatically expand traditional moral and legal limits on just cause to include preventive or preemptive uses of military force to overthrow threatening regimes or to deal with the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction? Should not a distinction be made between efforts to change unacceptable behavior of a government and efforts to end that government"s existence?
Norms governing the conduct of war. While we recognize improved capability and serious efforts to avoid directly targeting civilians in war, the use of massive military force to remove the current government of Iraq could have incalculable consequences for a civilian population that has suffered so much from war, repression, and a debilitating embargo.
We raise these troubling questions to contribute to the vital national debate about ends and means, risks and choices reflecting our responsibilities as pastors and teachers. Our assessment of these questions leads us to urge you to pursue actively alternatives to war. We hope you will persist in the very frustrating and difficult challenges of building broad international support for a new, more constructive and effective approach to press the Iraqi government to live up to its international obligations. This approach could include continued diplomatic efforts aimed, in part, at resuming rigorous, meaningful inspections; effective enforcement of the military embargo; maintenance of political sanctions and much more carefully-focused economic sanctions which do not threaten the lives of innocent Iraqi civilians; non-military support for those in Iraq who offer genuine democratic alternatives; and other legitimate ways to contain and deter aggressive Iraqi actions.
We respectfully urge you to step back from the brink of war and help lead the world to act together to fashion an effective global response to Iraq's threats that conforms with traditional moral limits on the use of military force.
Sincerely yours,
Most Reverend Wilton D. Gregory
Bishop of Belleville
President
Whoop-dee-doo.
Not in the US.
Yes but the argument is closer. On the one hand, we will have met the jurisdictional test by going to the Security Council for authorization and would be acting under some color of authority against a threat to international order albeit it causally attentuated.
Second, the War to Make Bush Believable creates dangerous a precedent which violates the imminent threat requirement of the just war theory not to mention the UN Charter. Third, when as here all steps to avoid war have not been made; where success in terms of continuing regional disruption, declining US influence in the world, political strife and bloodshed both in Iraq and elsewhere in the region; and most importantly, the imminence test is not met, the question of how the US fights is not relevant.
The war is morally illicit and from a Christian point of view, tantamount to murder. The same sort of reasoning applies to individual claims of self-defense. You cannot walk up to someone who killed your sister 10 years ago and shoot him. If you do, your homicide is not justifiable.
Neither a UN sanction nor a Congressional sanction makes ano otherwise illicit killing licit. The Economist, wacko wing of their editorial board, made much the same point in their editorial supporting the war. Opting as their SOLE justification the "he gassed his own people and Iran 15 years ago", the Economist first dismissed this argument as hyper legalistic. Being a lawyer, I must admit to having been rather taken with the point that UN blessing could somehow make the immoral moral. Why hells bells, break a contract?
The war, the justifications for it, the diplomacy that precedes ut, the geopolitical thinking that underpins it, the development of strategy and tactics to fight it, the absence of any will or plan or competence to deal with the aftermath, all of it is a disaster, not in the making but in the unfolding.
Is it any wonder then that Bush is now giving us all the bum's rush now?
To paraphrase Chuck Hagel, its easier to start a war than fight or finish it, easier still if he can short circuit debate and inquiry.
From Bush's point of view, three weeks is one damn sight better than three months. For the rest of us...
US doctrine has been to minimize civilian casualties, Saddam's military will most likely crumple quickly--indeed the only likely high casualty event would be Saddam using what WMD he has, either against the invading forces or against Israel. One could argue that even in a divided and conflict prone Iraq, Iraqis would benefit from no longer being ruled by Saddam.
A somewhat different objection to your application of just war theory here.
Yes, the number of casualties US (some say 1000) and Iraqi (8-ten times that) SHOULD not be large relative to say Vietnam but most likely the Iraq war will account for the second largest casualty toll since Korea. There were I think about 20,000 civilian deaths in GWI. Furthermore, if there is any significant urban fighting (more than a day or two), even these "light" casualty predictions that the Hawks are spinning, are out the window.
The just war theory does NOT justify killings to "liberate" a sovereign nation's "suffering people" ceteris paribus for obvious reasons both moral and prudential (Cuba, in answer to the Bay of Pigs invasion, today landed 10,000 troops in Mobile to liberate Alabama blacks from George Wallace and Bull Conner etc.)
On the same basis, we must also reject as immaterial the 'Flowers of Democracy' pretext of the ChickenHawks and Zan's "Onward Christian Soldiers Kill Sand Niggers" moral(!) theology of the so-called "Christian" right.
There's not enough lipstick for this pig. Each week or two brings a new "justification" to replace the prior weeks worn out and descredited offering.
It's 4:30am in SF.
Do you know where your mind is?
Sun Sep 22, 7:47 AM ET
By Richard Waddington
Strategery for Spastic Policy Makers, Staledated & Bored Cold Warriors Cum Chicken Hawks and Morons
Case in point...now Bush is bitching about the time it will take to catch up with all the home chemistry sets that can be used to make VX gas that can't be delivered anywhere. We CAN discover what if any progress Sad-am has make with nukes..but that was LAST WEEK's war scare.
Back to "he gassed his own people" 15 years ago.
GENEVA (Reuters) - U.N. inspectors could take a long time to turn up hard evidence of any Iraqi germ or chemical warfare programs because the trail may be cold, experts warn.
"You may get lucky. But it is more likely to be painstaking detective work. Like investigating a murder, it could take a long time," said one Geneva-based arms expert who asked not to be named.
The United States demands quick United Nations ( news - web sites) action to enforce, militarily if necessary, its resolutions ordering Iraq to destroy suspected biological, chemical and nuclear weapons.
Baghdad denies it has such weapons and in a bid to ward off any U.S.-led attack, it has offered to allow the unconditional return of U.N. weapons inspectors, barred since 1998.
Saturday, however, Iraq said the return would have to be on terms it said it had agreed with U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan ( news - web sites), without spelling out what they were.
The offer has been welcomed by Russia which said that getting the inspectors back is the top priority because it should be easy to determine whether or not the government of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein ( news - web sites) is hiding anything.
Arms experts, however, say it is not that simple and that while a nuclear weapons program might be quickly detectable, biological and chemical arms pose a big challenge
My mind...now where did I put the damn thing..ya know I usually put it in my right front pocket when not in use..
Shit.
But first a vocabulary lesson...
Protocol - 1a. The forms of ceremony and etiquette observed by diplomats and heads of state. b. A code of correct conduct: safety protocols; academic protocol.
It is a moral teaching of the Majesterium of the Roman Catholic Church that has, as previously been pointed out to you, been a central tenet of Christian moral theology since St. Augustine of Hippo; is the single most influential philosophical model for dealing with the ethical issues of war
The fifth commandment is not a protocol. The injunction Jesus Christ added to it, is not a protocol.
THIS IS NOT a protocol, for Catholics it is a moral imperative to consider deliberately. The USCCB did a fine job but its an easy call. If only Bush were Catholic or even a good Methodist!
I have not restricted your posting here thus far, jex. But we have all by now read the Just War "teachings", and I suspect anyone who pays any attention to you can now recite them verbatim.
Please refrain from spammimg this thread.
(Not that joe, J.J. et. al. care to listen)
Yesiree, politics surely makes strange bed buddies. Now Robert Byrd is a "true patriot."
The ex-KKer Robert Byrd who:
The Democrats are welcome to supporters like that.
If you think I am going to let you get away with a cheap shot without leveling a full, fair, and on point answering blast, you best think again. I refer to your Message # 666.
Now if Cllr or Al D or Ace posted that message I probably would not have reposted the authority. As far as I can tell, none of them is a confessional Christian, and Cllr... But you on the other hand claim to be a practicing "Christian" fundamentalist. Now I don't really care what religion you practice or that you are a fundamentalist. Its the fundie claim that its half baked collection of distortions, heresies, intolerance, and cracker racism is Christian!
But even then, I could hold my tongue. Your religion is your business until you make it mine. And that's what you did in Message # 666. That's not the first time either. You've done it a number of times in a number of contexts and every time you do, you will be answered and again and again.
From July Bush rallies US for strike on Iraq
June
March
Byrd's senility or drunkenness must be flaring up again.
And neither is the Southern Fried Chicken Block of the GOP which is where all the bigots went the niggers got the vote.
Poof! The world's most serious threat to peace gone, and blow for democracy as bonus. Two minutes
Fair time for fundies...
No adjectives needed to help this along...Its self-trivializes without any help from me. Note the differences between this and Abp Gregory's letter above:
US Baptist group backs ousting Saddam by force
Stephen Bates, religious affairs correspondent
Friday September 20, 2002
The Guardian
After months of critical comment from church leaders across the world and in the US, the Bush administration has at last won the support of one religious group for its Iraq policy.
The 16 million-strong Southern Baptist Convention, the fundamentalist Bible Christians of the southern states, has backed the campaign to remove Saddam Hussein's regime by force.
Richard Land, president of the convention's ethics and religious liberty commission, said: "It would be a strategic and sizable blow to terrorism to remove [Saddam's] Hitleresque administration from power. It would suggest to Iranians, Saudis and Syrians that they too could have such a government of the people, by the people and for the people."
He added: "The US should not sit idly by waiting for her allies in Europe to indicate their support ... no offence intended but we have had to extricate the Europeans from conflagrations of their own making twice in the last century."
Not fly spec of Christian belief in any of that far right spew and not a little bit of nativist crapola
But rang true with what?
Today's Washington Post covered the same topic - the latest war plan (ver. 29.12) in the saga "Bush Bumbles to Baghdad".
A marine corps intelligence analyst is adamant "We must hit the RG hard and fast"
This is all of a piece with the ChickenHawk party line - Iraq threatens world peace, but their army can only threaten to fold and go home. So they push the defection line, which also sounds plausible and hopeful, so I belived that. Then I read, a comment from Anthony Cordesman "we've heard predictions of mass defections repeatedly going back to the Iran Iraq War (a seriously brutal war) and they never pan out.
So now shoud we target the RG because if we don't they'll turn Marines into ground burger in bloody urban war or should we not target them because they will lead a place coup?
Could it be that the ChickenHawks are truly clueless, that they have repeated their fact-starved rhetoric so often they've convinced themselves, worse that we have heard it so often that even we forget that its not real?
Bullshit answers the echo of Bullshit...
I have Lexis Ace....what say I go do a search and just post the summary pages search "Bush" "no decision" "no plan" "War w/2 iraq" (summer months)
What do you bet....150 hits...300...what do you think Ole Joey would do if I posted just the articles summaries?
Bryd is indeed senile but damned if he isn't right too
A few excerpts of note
WMD a Pretext: ChickenHawks Won't Stop at Baghdad
"Despite Iraq's sudden invitation to renew UN weapons inspections, American hardliners will keep up the pressure for war. Regime change might be achieved under cover of disarming Baghdad. But without a serious debate on the objectives of force, there will be no opportunity to consider what could go wrong or how to handle the competing interests.
New order
A determined stance in the face of regional criticism of administration policy, whether toward Palestine or Iraq, is intrinsic to the US war agenda. The so-called hawks championing the cause of regime change in Iraq have made it clear that they have more than the government in Baghdad in their sights.
The neo-conservative wing of the Bush administration is looking for a new regional order, where liberal-capitalist, democratic governments aligned with the United States will replace theocratic, dictatorial and otherwise antithetical regimes. It is claimed that forcing such change in Baghdad will send a message to Tehran, Damascus, Riyadh and Cairo that they will face the censure, if not the intervention, of the US unless they fall into line. The outcome, the hawks claim, will not only serve the US national interest but also promote international peace and security more generally.
Dr Rosemary Hollis is Head of the Middle East Programme at Chatham House
In a move which reveals advanced US plans for the next phase of its war on terror, Government departments are considering the plans ahead of Vice-President Dick Cheney's meeting with the Prime Minister tomorrow....
British troops would be part of a 250,000-strong ground force to invade Iraq in an operation similar to Desert Storm in 1991.
The second option is one where smaller special forces units would support opposition forces within Iraq, like the tactic used in Afghanistan, where the Northern Alliance was backed with air strikes and logistical support in its battle to overthrow the Taliban.
The third option - thought to be preferred by the Foreign Office - is one of 'aggressive containment'. Under this plan, air strikes against Iraq would be intensified if Saddam did not agree to a comprehensive inspections agreement.
Senile segregationist and true patriot Robert "White Nigger" Byrd: "Back in August, the president had no plans...."
My, my, Ace. Aren't we PC all of a sudden! 
Victory of the Loud Little Handful by Mark Twain
"The loud little handful - as usual - will shout for the war. The pulpit will - warily and cautiously - object... at first. The great, big, dull bulk of the nation will rub its sleepy eyes and try to make out why there should be a war, and will say, earnestly and indignantly, "It is unjust and dishonorable, and there is no necessity for it."
Then the handful will shout louder. A few fair men on the other side will argue and reason against the war with speech and pen, and at first will have a hearing and be applauded, but it will not last long; those others will outshout them, and presently the antiwar audiences will thin out and lose popularity.
Before long, you will see this curious thing: the speakers stoned from the platform, and free speech strangled by hordes of furious men...
Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception."
Mark Twain, "The Mysterious Stranger" (1910)
What morons.
always evades the unmistakable truth with bullying vituperates
Hardly. One "unmitakable truth" was that Robert Byrd was a "true patriot." Well, I ask, does a true patriot make the statements of Sen. Byrd in 684? In particular, does a "true patriot" say: "I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds"?
That's true patriotism in your book, eh?
Now, the other point (besides whether Mr. Byrd's opinions ought to be valued), is whether his facts can be trusted. That's the other "unmistakeable truth." What factual, verifiable statements did Mr. Byrd make?
"The [political] polls are dropping..."
That's not precisely true, not according to Gallup.
"Back in August, the president had no plans..."
As demonstrated several times above, this isn't true either.
So in matters of fact, Mr. Byrd is inaccurate and in matters of opinion he has a history of being, umm, behind the curve, to put it politely.
One way or the other, Twain is likely more ignorant of contemporary political events and the current situation in Iraq than both Robert Byrd and you. For this and other reasons, it would do little good to ask him if the thinks his quotation is applicable.
What regime change? The Greens put them over the top, or so it appears for now.
Is this a Mote version of "What's My Line?"
FABULOUS! I get to play Arlene Francis.
"Is it Ann Coulter, John?"
Yeah - I jumped the gun...the candidates' comments -especially Schroeder's "..nothing to be depressed about yet", or something like that - led me to believe he was toast.
Oh well. So Saddam retains one ally - no biggie.
<Das Lied Der Deutschland
See what I mean JAH...the Crackpot Corn Pone SuperPatriot get all old glorified with his love country and hatred of dune coons and
Shroeder is now a Saddamite...
>
1. Deutschland, Deutschland über alles,
ـber alles in der Welt,
Wenn es stets zu Schutz und Trutze
Brüderlich zusammenhنlt,
Von der Maas bis an die Memel,
Von der Etsch bis an den Belt -
|: Deutschland, Deutschland über alles,
ـber alles in der Welt. :|
Shroeder Rides Wave Anti-Moronism to Smashing Win
Its the world against Bush & Blair J Chirac, M. Le President
Israel Just Says NO to Bush - Again
Sharon Plans to Drive Palestinians into the Desert
Not actual links, actual headlines:
Bush: Attack on Arafat Compound "Not Helpful"
Confusion as White House shifts its policy on Middle East
Powell and Bush drift apart on Middle East
Author Toby Harnden
Bush warns Israel to restrain tanks
Author Alan Philps
DATE: 10 May 2002
Sharon to take hard line with Bush
Author Inigo Gilmore
DATE: 05 May 2002
George W. Bush is a geopolitical incompetent. I. Wallerstein
I have this vague feeling that jexster is repeating himself.
Is it just me?
Our Debt to Sharon - Sen Byrd Just Says NO to Moron WarLord
What a pair...Bubble n Squeak
What a pair...Bubble n Squeak
Colonel David Hackworth, U.S. Army, Retired, exposes their plight and the political implications of the VA stonewalling so that the casualty statistics don't undermine Bush and his "noisy platoon of war hawks."
``It's pretty interesting that all the generals see it the same way and all the others who have never fired a shot and are hot to go to war see it another way"
A. Zinni USMC-ret (Saddamite)
Molly Ivins writes "Don't you just hate it when the bad guys agree to do what we want them to? If that's not a good reason to go in and take out Saddam, name one. But our Fearless Leader, not one to be deterred from war merely by getting what he wants, promptly moved the goalposts and issued a new list of demands Iraq must meet... This is not a debate, it's Bush in his 'You're either with us or against us' mode - [and] there's no evidence the administration has thought past Step One... The most unpleasant and unhelpful aspect of this 'debate' is the implication that anyone who expresses serious doubts about this venture is unpatriotic - and it often comes from the same people who spent eight years eaten alive with Clinton hatred. Being patriotic doesn't mean agreeing with the government. The most fundamental American right is to not agree with the government and to raise hell about it."
Ain't War Hell
Molly Ivins - Saddamite
Does she actually think anyone believes Iraq has agreed to unconditional inspections?
No.
But she has every reason to believe the wretchedly dishonest faithful will parrot her besotted, er...writing (see above).
'The German Way'
As we noted last week, there is one point of commonality between the militaristic Germany of the 1930s and the pacifistic Germany of the 2000s: Both are siding against the free world with a fascist dictator, albeit in this case not their own. As if to underscore our point, the Times of London reported before the election that "German neo-Nazis, including the former head of the far-Right Republican Party, Franz Schِnhuber, are coming out in support of the Chancellor for having adopted 'the German way' in defying the United States.
Once again, as during the Third Reich, German nationalism draws Left and Right together to support a totalitarian autocrat and to spit in the face of the free world.
More broadly, if the United States brings democracy to Iraq, it will mean seizing power from the 17 percent Sunni minority who dominate the army and government and giving it to the 60 percent Shiite majority. The upshot could be greater influence for Iran, a fellow Shiite country with close ties to Iraq's Shiite cities.
Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini spent 13 years in exile here in Najaf, and many top Iranian ayatollahs stayed for shorter periods. Iranian hard-liners are probably salivating at the thought of America naïvely creating a Shiite Iraq so that the two countries could pool their nuclear resources and build the bomb together.
ERLIN, Sept. 23 — Chancellor Gerhard Schrِder, who won narrow re-election on Sunday in part by opposing an American war in Iraq, tried today to patch up relations with Washington, but President Bush broke with protocol and refrained from making the customary congratulatory telephone call to the German leader.
In Warsaw for a meeting of NATO defense ministers, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld announced that he would not meet his German counterpart, Peter Struck. Mr. Rumsfeld was blunt about the Schrِder campaign.
Pwease Don' Go Away Mad:
Bush Spurns German Effort to Mend Relations
From the outset, the administration has operated in a manner calculated to please the portion of its base that occupies the far right, at the expense of the solidarity among all of us as Americans and solidarity between our country and our allies.
In the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, more than a year ago, we had an enormous reservoir of good will and sympathy and shared resolve all over the world. That has been squandered in a year's time and replaced with great anxiety all around the world, not primarily about what the terrorist networks are going to do, but about what we're going to do.
Deutscher Wein und deutscher Sang. :|
Not to mention Deutche maenner!
The Shiite Muslims who make up 60 percent of Iraq — but who have never held power — will rampage through the narrow streets here. Remembering the whispers from the bazaar about how Saddam's minions burned the beard off the face of a great Shiite leader named Muhammad Bakr al-Sadr, then raped and killed his sister in front of him, and finally executed him by driving nails through his head, the rebels will tear apart anyone associated with the ruling Baath Party.
In one Shiite city after another, expect battles between rebels and army units, periodic calls for an Iranian-style theocracy, and perhaps a drift toward civil war. For the last few days, I've been traveling in these Shiite cities — Karbala, Najaf and Basra — and the tension in the bazaars is thicker than the dust behind the donkey carts.
So before we rush into Iraq, we need to think through what we will do the morning after Saddam is toppled....
"Thinking"?!?!
Ruh-roh We Are in Deep Shit Now
"The document is a damp squib. It really consists of a reworking of information that was already public. It seems more like a PR stunt than a serious attempt to bring new information forward. Tony Blair will have to do better than this if he wants to convince the British public to go to war."
Diane Abbott, the Labour MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington
"It does not produce any convincing evidence, or any 'killer fact', that says that Saddam Hussein has to be taken out straight away. What it does do is produce very convincing evidence that the weapons inspectors have to be pushed back into Iraq very quickly ... It is a very clever document. Everybody expected it to outline the case for war on Iraq, but it doesn't even attempt to do that."
Major Charles Heyman, editor of Jane's World Armies
"This dossier will require close scrutiny. At first glance, this dossier does not appear to show clear evidence of an immediate and imminent threat from Iraq. Nothing in this document should divert us from dealing with these matters through the United Nations."
Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman Menzies Campbell
"An awful lot of the material we are being shown at the moment has been around for a very long time. Military intervention has got to be avoided at all costs, especially a unilateral one. If Iraq poses a direct threat and is about to attack one of its neighbours with weapons of mass destruction, then the whole game changes, but at the moment that is certainly not the case. A lot of people feel we are being almost inevitably drawn into war without the UN course being pursued."
Mark Seddon, a leftwing member of Labour's National Executive Committee
(That's why I make it a practice to never read the Wall St Journal editorial page at breakfast.)
That's a pretty big shift from an issue that might favor Democrats to one more likely to favor Republicans.
Good heavens, but 37 percent of Americans support our sending ground troops to Iraq even if Congress opposes it!
In contrast, only 47 percent favored groundtroops in Kosovo even after airstrikes had begun and with full NATO cooperation.
Try reading less selectively, dear.
I know it makes your head hurt, but there's always Tylenol. 
Kahil from the Arab News 9/21/02 - The Wahhabi Lobby pitches in to help their German Watermelon Coalition allies. 
Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Mohammed Amin el-Hussaini while in exile in Nazi Germany and a friend.
Will the real Hitler please stand up?
Americans Do Not Trust Bush -Reject Proposed Resolution
There is no good news for Bush in the latest Gallup poll. None.
Bush has failed to sell his preemptive unilateral strikes doctrine. Only 38% approve of "going it alone" in Iraq. The Democrats have succeeded in convincing Americans there should be congressional and UN approval for action. The majority of Americans do not trust Bush with the power he is asking Congress to approve. Why? It goes to a fundamental mistrust of the Bush regime, which has demonstrated its eagerness to abuse its ill-gotten power every day since stealing the election in 2000.
When are the Media Whores going to catch up to the American people and stop reporting lies and propaganda about Bush "leadership"? Bush has failed to convince the people he can be trusted on Iraq, even after weeks of his lapdog media whores beating the war drums relentlessly and sneering about an alleged Democratic political predicament. The American people instead support the reasoned, moral, intelligent, and responsible course put forth by the man they elected to the US presidency, Al Gore.
But the Bush Administration will continue to give Shroeder the cold shoulder for a long time, as they reasonably argue that the Schroeder campaign did step over the line.
Why? Because the poll shows that Americans understand that inspections cannot succeed.
If the U.N. insists on inspections that cannot work, Americans will abandon their sentimental, collect-money-for-UNICEF-children-on-Halloween feelings about the United Nations, and agree to roll.
news for Bush & Co.
Uh...virtually every single pundit I've heard/seen/read - from loopy left to rabid right - agrees on one thing wrt Iraq (and in the broader context of foreign -v- domestic issues in national elections): If the question of whether or not to attack Iraq is still an issue at election time, the R's are at a distinct advantage.
Why do you think Dashole, Gephardt and Co. took a 180؛, from their straight Demobot line of "We need to ask questions - to debate the justifications, the consequences, blabbedy-blah-blah-blah...", to "OK - let's hurry up and vote to bomb the bastard!", all in the twinkling of an eye?
Because, with over 2/3 of Americans favoring war against Iraq, they want the issue of whether or not to do it gone by November.
This is not even news, Cellar. You've really gotta stick to cinema and picking on "Sully" - politics just ain't your thang.
As inexcusable as the Japanese actions were during WWII, their atrocities were less comprehensive than that of the Nazis, and Japan's ideology at the time did not emphasize explicit racism to the extent the National Socialists did.
Well, the poll doesn't answer that question. Here's how the Gallup Poll question reads: "Do you think Congress should -- or should not -- vote to give President Bush unlimited authority to use military action against Iraq whenever he feels it is necessary?"
Heck, even I might answer "no" to that question. Had Gallup instead said, "Do you think Congress should--or should not--vote to give President Bush authority to "use all means that he determines to be appropriate, including force, in order to enforce the United Nations Security Council resolutions referenced above, defend the national security interests of the United States against the threat posed by Iraq, and restore international peace and security in the region," the numbers, I suspect, would be different.
The Democrats have succeeded in convincing Americans there should be congressional and UN approval for action.
Hah! The Democrats haven't been saying enough to convince anyone of anything.
Bush has failed to convince the people he can be trusted on Iraq
The Gallup Poll on 9/2 (even before Bush spoke to the UN or Congress) showed Americans approved of what he was doing on Iraq 64 to 34.
They'll be in for a Michael Dukakis-style shellacking. Daschle has so far been a little more astute.
I know how I would answer, and I doubt I'd be in the minority.
If Gore continues with this he won't even be nominated.
Ronski, I posted the same thing over at "The Perfect World."
The only upside I can see for him (because he could have avoided stepping in it entirely, much more so than Daschle) is that it telegraphs his intentions re 2004 and shows himself as still in the fray.
You are no doubt right and that is what motivated him.
I'm just wondering why he chose San Francisco, when Berkeley is right next door.
He must be thinking about tacking towards the center in the general election.
Maybe he's the Demo's trial balloon...you know - saying the words the gutless worms long to speak, but dare not? Then, see how it comes out in the wash.
Someone suggested in another forum that he's engaging in an extremely cynical strategy: If we attack and it goes well, he won't have a snowball's chance in hell in 2004. But if we end up not attacking...or if we do and it doesn't go well, he's set. He'll be the lone voice that cried out in the wilderness.
That's starting to make more and more sense, the longer I think about it.
Be that as it may, I think that folks like Cellar - well-meaning, peace-loving, good Democrats (yeah, yeah - I know, Cellar) are in denial about their heroes up on the Hill.
They're spineless, and "da moron" has played them like a harp.
"Dear Rep. Pelosi:
In recent weeks, several prominent Republicans, among them Brent Scowcroft, your colleague Dick Armey, Lawrence Eagleburger, and James Baker have boldly and decisively spoken out against Bush plans to invade Iraq. Over that same period, prominent Democrats have remained embarrasingly silent. As a Democrat and constituent I am ashamed, and I am angry."
Sorry I didn't save my e-mail missive[sic} to Gephardt. You would have loved my line about his "profile in cowardice".
Yea Bush pullled REAL smooth move alright. Wag the Dog, Wave the flag weeks before an Electon where he stand a good chance of losing control of both Houses of Congress or was it so smart after all?
We are talking severe mental handicap here. On the one hand, he has distracted attention from corruption, fiscal irresponsiblity, social security, health care costs, the economy. On every domestic issue of importance to the voters this fall, the Democrats have solid leads. Smooth move ex-lax!
But hold the phone. As Bill Schneider pointed out just today, Bush hasn't changed the underlying electoral dynamic which continues to favor the Democrats, albeit narrowly. What's more, if Schneider's analysis is correct, it appears that the Moron may have stepped into some of that pigshit that has been pilin up over to the White Palace lately. Bush has energized anti-war forces around the country are getting seriously motivated and getting traction. Schneider sees no benefit and a big downside as this is working for Democrats in several key races.
There isn't any sustainable support for this war especially if the US has to "go it alone" or begin bombing with inspectors on the ground. As no lesser GOP light than Mitch McConnel put it, Bush cannot get a resolution if forced to wait until after the election. I have said this as well and Bush all but admitted for nearly every day he's "demanding" action now.
Well, I wouldn't be so sure he's going to get action now. At least I wouldn't bet the lower 40 on it.
Desperate times JoeZ deserve desperate measures and Bush is certainly desperate.
This doesn't help much either does it:
RAMALLAH, West Bank (AP) - Israel defied a U.N. Security Council demand Tuesday to end its six-day siege of Yasser Arafat ( news - web sites)'s devastated West Bank headquarters, and nine Palestinians were killed in an Israeli strike against alleged munitions factories and other targets in Gaza City
RAMALLAH, West Bank (AP) - Israel defied a U.N. Security Council demand Tuesday to end its six-day siege of Yasser Arafat ( news - web sites)'s devastated West Bank headquarters, and nine Palestinians were killed in an Israeli strike against alleged munitions factories and other targets in Gaza City
Maybe you remember too back three-four months ago Bush's DEMAND that Congress pass the bill before 9-1-1 and how the pundits proclaimed oh my this must pass by then and how all the big chees Republican and Democratic Senators and Congressmen trotted out to the nearest microphone "Oh sure we'll pass the LONG before then."
There is real good chance it will pass before NEXT September.
Want to know more?
No?
Where's Prof Slack...he'd appreciate it.
Nice weather for a fillibuster don't you think?
Ole Robt Bryd used to do a really entertaining fillbuster 25-30 years ago. Bet he'd be a hoot now that he's "senile"
Its not too hard. Its in black and white.
I also believe that Bush doesn't want you to believe that which is in black and white.
I also believe that the LAST thing that Bush wants is a UN resolution tough or not.
Yo Sybil Bitch
Range of Support for U.S. Military Action Against Iraq
Favor/
Oppose
%
%
In general
57
38
If other countries participate in invading Iraq
79
18
If the United Nations supports invading Iraq
79
19
If Congress supports invading Iraq
69
28
If the United States has to invade Iraq alone
38
59
If the United Nations opposes invading Iraq
37
58
If Congress opposes invading Iraq
37
59
From the outset, the administration has operated in a manner calculated to please the portion of its base that occupies the far right, at the expense of the solidarity among all of us as Americans and solidarity between our country and our allies.
Surplus...squander..alone..afraid
How many times do you think Bush can wag the dog's dick b4 it bites him?
Arab/Muslim World Strongly Opposes
Potential U.S. attack of Iraq - Zogby
A U.S. attack on Iraq is strongly opposed by 10 international nations, results from the Zogby International 10-nation “Impressions of America” poll reveal.
Results show all ten nations are in great opposition to a potential U.S. attack on Iraq. In strongest opposition are Iran (1% favorable, 76% unfavorable), Egypt (3% favorable, 84% unfavorable), Indonesia (3% favorable, 94% unfavorable) and Lebanon (7% favorable, 84% unfavorable). Also in opposition are Saudi Arabia (11% favorable, 80% unfavorable), Kuwait (13% favorable, 61% unfavorable), and the UAE (10% favorable, 60% unfavorable), along with France (13% favorable, 62% unfavorable), Venezuela (17% favorable, 21% unfavorable) and Pakistan (26% favorable, 51% unfavorable).
All ten nations also give the U.S. extremely negative ratings for its policy toward Iraq. Among the most negative are Iran (0% excellent/good, 95% so-so/poor), Lebanon (4% excellent/good, 90% so-so/poor), Egypt (4% excellent/good, 83% so-so/poor) and Indonesia (7% excellent/good, 80% so-so/poor).....
Gore Iraq Speech Could Galvanize Anti-War Forces
Tue Sep 24, 2:02 PM ET
By Alan Elsner, National Correspondent
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A fierce attack on President Bush ( news - web sites)'s Iraq policy issued by former Vice President Al Gore ( news - web sites) could help galvanize U.S. opposition to a new Gulf war ( news - web sites) while serving as a launching pad for Gore's probable 2004 presidential campaign, analysts said on Tuesday.
Reuters Photo
In a speech in San Francisco, the defeated 2000 Democratic presidential nominee on Monday laid out a scathing critique of Bush's Iraq policy.
Pollster John Zogby said Gore's message was "very well timed."
"Gore stepped in just as it appeared that pro-war sentiment would go virtually unchallenged in Congress and in the country," Zogby said. "There will be an anti-war movement that grows out of this."
In President's Speeches, Iraq Dominates, Economy Fades
Fadin fast too
Stocks Slump, Dow at 4-Year Low
Too bad ole Sad-am ain't on the ballot.
Al Gore - rekindling the spirit of George McGovern (minus the personality).
HoooooBOY - I can hardly wait!
[M]any Democrats concede that they have little leverage to make major changes in the resolution, such as a bigger role for the United Nations in the confrontation with Iraq. The president is "going to get whatever he wants," said a senior House Democratic strategist.
...Daschle said he shares many of his colleagues' concerns, especially the detrimental effect an attack could have on the broader war on terrorism. He said he has encouraged them to vote their conscience. "I think under these circumstances that it is in spite of our grave concerns that we give the benefit of the doubt to the president," Daschle said in an interview.
"Yep --- you young'uns go right ahead and vote your conscience. Me? I'm keeping my damn job."
Mr. Gore's remarks also reflect a change in his own stance. In a February speech before the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, he said that the war on terrorism would require a "final reckoning" with Saddam. He also said: "As far as I'm concerned, there really is something to be said for occasionally putting diplomacy aside and laying one's cards on the table. There is value in calling evil by its name."
Well here we go again with this silly talk of "Evil". Will these right wing religious nuts never learn that there is simply NO SUCH THING AS "EVIL"???
There are only "pro-Democratic forces working within --" (insert name of country)
A rhetorical question if I ever saw one.
Gore uttered his first big lie in the second paragraph of the speech when he informed the audience that his main concern was with "those who attacked us on Sept. 11, and who have thus far gotten away with it." Who have thus far gotten away with it. The government of Gore's country has led a coalition of nations in war against al Qaeda, "those who attacked us on Sept. 11"; has destroyed al Qaeda's central organization and much of its physical assets; has destroyed the Taliban, which had made Afghanistan a state home for al Qaeda; has bombed the forces of al Qaeda from one end of Afghanistan to the other; has killed at least hundreds of terrorists and their allies; and has imprisoned hundreds more and is hunting down the rest around the world. All this while Gore, apparently, slept.
Well, perhaps Gore was talking loosely. No. He made clear in the next sentence this was a considered indictment: "The vast majority of those who sponsored, planned and implemented the coldblooded murder of more than 3,000 Americans are still at large, still neither located nor apprehended, much less punished and neutralized." If there is a more reprehensible piece of bloody-shirt-waving in American political history than this attempt by a man on the sidelines to position himself as the hero of 3,000 unavenged dead, I am not aware of it.
Probably the purest example of the Gore style -- equal parts mendacity, viciousness and smarm -- occurred when Gore expressed his concern (his deep, heartfelt concern) over "the doubts many have expressed about the role that politics might be playing in the calculations of some in the administration." And then added: "I have not raised those doubts, but many have."
What a moment! What a speech! What a man! What a disgrace.
As usual when Demobots can't argue facts they resort to cheap insults.
WASHINGTON, Sept. 25 — Senator Tom Daschle, the majority leader, angrily accused President Bush today of using the Iraq issue for political fodder and said he should apologize.
"That is wrong," Mr. Daschle declared on the Senate floor. "We ought not politicize this war. We ought not politicize the rhetoric about war and life and death."
And a return favor
Woof Woof Hands off Da Dick Bitch
So, the thing is probably inevitable. Let's get it over with.
While engaged in the absolute height of political cynicism and opportunism, he accuses Bush.
Man, I'm telling you now - November is looking sweeter and sweeter.
AP Photo
AP Photo
Slideshow: Iraq and Saddam Hussein
U.S. Hails Blair's Case Against Iraq
(AP Video)
"That is wrong," Daschle said in an impassioned speech on the Senate floor. "We ought not politicize this war. We ought not politicize the rhetoric about war and life and death."
"You tell those who fought in Vietnam and World War II they are not interested in the security of the American people" because they are Democrats, Daschle said. "That is outrageous. Outrageous."
Sen. Daniel Inouye ( news, bio, voting record), D-Hawaii, who lost an arm in World War II, also spoke on the Senate floor: "It grieves me when my president makes statements that would divide this nation," he said.
Daschle cited a string of actions by the administration including a comment by Bush that the Democratic-controlled Senate is "not interested in the security of the American people."
Al Gore Makes Bush Cry
Former Veep's trenchant slurred speech causes President furious bout of confused blinking, sniffles
War is the health of the State. It automatically sets in motion throughout society those irresistible forces for uniformity, for passionate cooperation with the Government in coercing into obedience the minority groups and individuals which lack the larger herd sense . . . the nation in war-time attains a uniformity of feeling, a hierarchy of values culminating at the undisputed apex of the State ideal, which could not possibly be produced through any other agency than war...The State is intimately connected with war, for it is the organization of the collective community when it acts in a political manner, and to act in a political manner towards a rival group has meant, throughout all history - war." [A War Diary by Randolph Bourne, September 1917]
Too bad Sad-am ain't on the ballot Z
Most seem to think it will start, in earnest, right after New Year's, to have the thing finished while the weather there is still cool.
Now of course that's a lie isn't it?
But if its not, why the fuck is the Congress considering a resolution approving something that doesn't exist?
WASHINGTON — They rule their world ruthlessly and insolently, deciding who will get a cold shoulder, who will get locked out of the power clique and who will get withering glares until they grovel and obey the arbitrary dictates of the leaders.
We could be talking about the middle-school alpha girls, smug cheerleaders with names like Darcy, Brittany and Whitney.
But, no, we're talking about the ostensibly mature and seasoned leaders of the Western world, a slender former cheerleader named W. and his high-hatting clique — Condi, Rummy and Cheney.
I used to think the Bush hawks suffered from testosterone poisoning, always throwing sharp elbows and cartoonishly chesty my-way-or-the-highway talk around the world, when a less belligerent tone would be classier and more effective.
But now we have the spectacle of the 70-year-old Rummy acting like a 16-year-old Heather, vixen-slapping those lower in the global hierarchy, trying to dominate and silence the beta countries with less money and fewer designer weapons
Speakin of little girls...
Where's Sybil?
Where's mah bitch?
Where's my wo-man?
Weisswurst is much better, anyway.
Great minds think alike...you were there first
Mo Dowd:
"In their eagerness to apply adolescent torture methods, Bush hawks seem to have forgotten history: Do we really want to punish the Germans for being pacifists? Once those guys get rolling in the other direction, they don't really know how to put the brakes on."
I was here first
Mo Dowd:
"Mr. Struck offered more German troops for Afghanistan and Mr. Fischer apologized to Colin Powell, the administration's gamma girl,"
Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit
Für das deutsche Vaterland!
Yes, that's my understanding too. And Saddam's tactics will be to while away this window of opportunity (for the US) by prevarications and procrastinations over the inspections issue.
You are right about the Weisswurst.
By Lloyd Grove
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 25, 2002; Page C03
C-SPAN's "Washington Journal" segment started out yesterday morning as typically sedate -- two members of Congress soberly dispensing wisdom about the threat from Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. But then Bob Filner, a five-term Democrat from California, said something that made South Carolina freshman Republican Joe Wilson go nuclear.
Filner, who opposes unilateral U.S. military action, suggested that in the 1980s, when U.S. officials sided with Iraq in its war against Iran, Saddam Hussein obtained biological and chemical weapons technology from the United States. "We gave it to him," Filner asserted.
"That is wrong. That's made up," Wilson fired back. "I can't believe you would say something like that."
When Filner calmly held his ground, advising Wilson to read newspaper reports and other documentation, the Republican erupted: "This hatred of America by some people is just outrageous. And you need to get over that."
"Yes!" Wilson shouted. For good measure, over the next minute Wilson accused Filner of harboring "hatred of America" four more times, of being "hateful" three times and of being "viscerally anti-American" once. Filner responded, "This is not worth replying to," and Brod finally regained control of the discussion by taking viewer phone calls.
"After the show ended, I told him, 'That was over the line,' " Filner told us later. "He started arguing with me and the aide who was with him said, 'Congressman, we better go.' "
Shortly after the broadcast, Filner encountered a Republican colleague who had seen the fireworks. "If that guy had said that to me, I would have punched him out," Filner quoted the Republican as saying. He refused to identify his sympathizer. "Listen, I was one of the first Freedom Riders in Mississippi in the early 1960s," Filner told us. "I've been beaten up and thrown in jail by better people than Joe Wilson."
Wilson wouldn't get on the phone with us but did send a written statement in which he defended his position that Filner is all wet. But he added: "If I said something in the heat of the debate that was taken as critical of the congressman's patriotism or commitment to this country, I apologize. As a 28-year member of the Army National Guard, I take these accusations very personally."
The UN will oppose it. Practically every nation on earth, with the possible exception of the UK, will oppose it.
If it's a done deal, then we're really entering a new era of world history. Let's hope it's a short one.
How long have world leaders been waiting for the blessing of the UN before going to war in your history books, Alistair?
And the idea that a nation ignoring the UN represents a new era in history is laughable. Ask Saddam Hussein.
Domestically, the majority of Americans are going to say "screw the UN."
Now let's assume Bush has been totally serious until now. (There is, after all, the possibility Bush is just doing a great job of bluffing, which Saddam's behavior until now indicates is what Saddam believes. Bush could be pursuing a Clintonesque strategy of threaten force, act like you really mean it, and maybe you won't have to use it.)
If the UN turns Bush down and Bush is serious, then the UN is toast because American unilateralism will toss it in the dustbin with the League of Nations. The UN doesn't want to be toast, so they have to try to accommodate Bush.
Dream on, Countess, dream on!
Reuters Photo
Daschle Condemns Bush Iraq Rhetoric
(AP Video)
Daschle's Democratic colleagues, many of whom have complained that they were being stampeded by Bush into approving the use of force against Iraq, gathered on the Senate floor during the speech and reached out to shake his hand afterward.
"We ought not to politicize this war. We ought not to politicize the rhetoric about life and death," Daschle said in his speech, his voice thick with emotion.
The way you burn some Bush is like Sharon burns Bush...
You JUST SAY NO to Bush...
Bush is a con man...Bush is faux texan...just kickem in the spot where the balls used to be
Text: Excerpts From Daschle's Speech on Iraq Debate
Video
But W. was, like, enjoying his hissy fit
Gnarly, if Dowd can steal my material, dad gummit so can you
Americans will listen to a well-crafted speech delivered by Bush as to why we had to act without the UN's blessing and conclude the UN is wrong here, worthy institution that it may be (remember UNICEF and Hallowe'en), and then fall in line in support of American troops rolling into Baghdad.
Trust me. I know my countrymen. The Vietnam War was pretty popular at the outset.
(But frankly, I think the UN will go along with the US and UK, so as not to lose relevance.)
You're too young to know that.
America was told it was a "Police Action" -- meaning it was of limited duration. Then like Topsey it "just grew." Yeah, right.
Anti-war sentiment was unpopular at first. Then it "just grew' too. Nixon ran on a platform that declared he was going to end the war.
Instead he expanded it into Laos, Thailand and Cambodia.
Fortunately we lost.
But not before thousands of Viernamese were killed
(Cellar ahs had it up to here with accounts of the war that deal only with American casualties and write the Vietnamese people out of their own history. )
Yes, this is what I mean by a new era in history. You got it in the end.
You seem to underestimate the extent to which the US is making a fool of itself (or rather, the extent to which Bush is making a fool of the US) -- make an ultimatum, get UN support, then make up a new one when the first one is acceded to. That's shonky diplomacy.
Sure, the UN will want to save face and keep the US on board if possible. But that doesn't change the fact that the strategic interests of Russia, China and France (since it's the Security Council I assume we're talking about) are far from being identical with those of the US, and none of them will be particularly keen a US puppet government in Irak (best possible outcome of an invasion), let alone the long-term turmoil and jihad which are the more likely outcomes.
So we've got a new doctrine : the US intervenes anywhere it damn likes, any time, in defense of its vital interests (in this case, not to put too fine a point on it, the viscous black stuff in the ground.)
I'm the same age as you. Despite the adage that if you remember the sixties, you weren't there, I was there, and I remember it. I also was a conscientious objector, as I have posted before, which should give you an idea of how involved I was with what was going on.
You are wrong to suggest the war was not popular at its outset. And of course it was a police action (not even that) at first, and of course it grew. It began with advisors, then military advisors, then small numbers of troops, and so on. And the opposition to it grew as well.
But in the mid to late sixties the war was supported by the majority of Americans. In fact, it wasn't until a while after Cronkite bailed out that majority support began to wain.
You will see the same pattern here, in this war. People will rally behind the troops. And the war -- the removal of Saddam part -- will take only weeks.
You won't see the same pattern here, in part because of Vietnam.
There was one person, one Senator who voted against the War in Vietnam. This time there will be more. At this time, and the numbers will change, but right now, about 40% of the US public supports this War. People are already calling it BUSH's war, not OUR war, not MY war, BUSH's war.
There was no opposition to the Vietnam war from the time the first advisors went in until about 1965. There will be far more than that on day 2.
"There's no price at which we think about giving up freedom because we can't afford it," O'Neill said at a press conference here to discuss the domestic economy.
"Freedom is the most important framework idea for our society and, therefore, it shouldn't be thought of as an economic question, at all. Period," O'Neill said.
Nothin ever like that - not even in Gulf of Tonkin I.
Immanuel Wallerstein is right.
See one war affects the other...never the same pattern always variations
You have correctly summed up the Bush Doctrine, which, as Dan Savage (radical gay writer and activist) summed up as, If we think you're coming after us next week, we're going to bomb your ass flat tomorrow, or words to that effect.
Oil is a part of it. And I am not so naive as to believe domestic politics do not play a part. But mostly it is (1) an aggressive view that America has been under assault because it has shown weakness against a pattern of attacks and (2) the desire, in large part genuine, to export democracy and western liberal (in the widest sense) values to parts of the world that could benefit from them.
Take up the White Man's burden--
Send forth the best ye breed--
Go, bind your sons to exile
To serve your captive's need;
To wait, in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild--
Your new-caught sullen peoples,
Half devil and half child.
Never Saw Anything Like This in 1965 - Newsday
Or this
Or This - Buffalo News
Or This - Jack Kemp
mmmm....second thought
God damn traitor...I love Jaysus...see Mr. Ashcroft it was all a big Joke I really love AmuriKa
First - there is no North and South Iraq. (Well, I guess if you want to nit-pick there is - but we already control both, with a little swath in the middle under Saddam's control).
Second - there is no Soviet Union around to supply Iraq with weapons, etc., as there was in VN. It will be a simple matter of attrition from day one.
Third - geographically, VN was a guerilla's paradise - thick jungle, mountains, etc.
Fourth - those same features facilitated not only the movement of men, but of equipment. The Iraqis couldn't move anything last time without us blasting it. Now, after 11 years of extremely detailed surveillance, and again totally lacking any air cover to move under, their ability to move equipment is even more compromised.
Fifth - we demoralized them last time. No matter what Saddam says, his people don't want to fuck with us again.
This war - if it comes - will be extremely short work.
Bend over Joey here it comes again
Bush is a "likable niddering sycophantic imbecile who couldn't screw in a lightbulb without Cheney, much less spell 'niddering' or 'sycophantic,'" Mark Morford.
niddering though I'll have to remember that one...
Your stupidity and ignorance are breathtaking, and your political judgment and prognostication skills non-existent.
It was two senators who opposed the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, dummy.
Where's my bitch?
Then, like magic, these questions disappeared from the headlines as the administration refocused the nation's attention on war with Iraq. No new information about Saddam Hussein's efforts to acquire nuclear weapons and no actions taken by Iraq seem to have precipitated this shift. The Iraqi regime has not changed since early in the Bush administration, when its great priority was building a missile defense shield, nor even since the 2000 election, when Bush said he would emphasize "humility" in foreign policy and opposed nation building.
A Reckless Rush to War
Damned I have NEVER seen pre-war shit like this Ronski..what planet RU from anyway????
Apparently, jasper will dredge up and post any old anti-Bush drool he finds out in LoopyLeftyLand.
The Bush administration is threatening to attack Iraq and has been doing so for many months now. But it is hard, even after the president's U.N. speech, to see the point of the threat. It might be intended to deter the Iraqis from developing weapons of mass destruction, but it seems more likely to speed up the work they are already doing--especially since George W. Bush has repeatedly insisted that his goal is not just to stop weapons development but also to overthrow the regime of Saddam Hussein. It might be intended to rally support for the war to come, but so far it has had exactly the opposite effect, giving every country in the world (and every former general in the U.S. Army) a chance to say no--a chance that many of them have eagerly seized.
INSPECTORS YES, WAR NO.
No Strikes - TNR
Ahhhahhhahhahh
She came from Planet Claire
I knew she came from there
She drove a Plymouth Satellite
Faster than the speed of light
Planet Claire has pink air
All The trees are red
No one ever dies there
No one has a head
Ahhhahhhahhahh
Some say she's from Mars
Or one of the seven stars
That shine after 3:30 in the morning
Well she isn't
She came from Planet Claire
She came from Planet Claire
She came from Planet Claire
Ahhhahhhahhahh
ROCK LOBSTER
B-52’S
Shit I may have to dig out my Senior Seminar paper on Vo Nyugen Giap, Mao Tse-Tung - NVA Strategy and Tactics in Vietnam
But keep your hands off Gephard's dick and your fingers out of Tom's Daschole.
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -Chronic bedwetter arrested for failure to pay Internet surcharges
AP Photo
AP Photo
Slideshow
My home movies
X-Ray of my ulcerated brainpan
A shut-in prone to incontinence was incarcerated Wednesday and being held on $100 bail after it was discovered he had run up more than $56,000 in unpaid access fees to his Internet Service Provider. Police were withholding his identity pending notification of his mother, but witnesses said the man claimed to be very close to "der Uber Hund Clinton" and that arresting officers could "eat my runny shit, fucking Juden Sharonistas."
And no one can talk to a horse of course
Of course unless of course that horse is the famous Mister Ed 
1968 Tet Offensive and Gen. Vo Nyugen Giap
She drove a Plymouth satellite...
Joey, my point, since you missed it, is that this ISN't yo daddy's war nor the one that King Georgie went AWOL on. 
Message for Gen. Bubbles and Corp. Squeak From M. O'Hanlon -Brookings
By concentrating air power on the Iraqi military in the field, and not on Iraq's infrastructure as was the case in the Gulf war, civilian casualties would be minimized. However, it would probably force retreating military units loyal to Saddam Hussein to fall back on the cities, where American power would be less effective. Fighting in cities is a nasty business accompanied by terrible casualties all around to say nothing of the destruction wrought. This may be Saddam's plan as there are reports that the Iraqis are digging trenches and erecting fortifications around urban centers. But, historically, when a regime's army is defeated in the field and loses control of the countryside cities don't long hold out. This was the Chinese communist experience in 1949 when it defeated Chiang Kai-shek. When it becomes clear to Iraqi troops holed up in Baghdad that defeat is in! evitable, defections and surrender become more likely. This is particularly true if the populace welcomes the attackers as was the case in Afghanistan.
Gen. Bernard Trainor, USMC-ret, Council on Foreign Relations
E-mail missive to Jasper
I know Joezan thinks all people in the world would welcome an American rescue but I suspect he is wrong; some like their existance, deprived though it may be of VCRs and SUVS and democracy.
And BTW, you don't know that he thinks that. I doubt he does.
That said, there will be some Baath loyalists who will hold out to the last and try to disrupt whatever occupation regime and reconstruction efforts that take place.
Given the recent history of this administration's nation-building efforts, I am much more optimistic about the initial welcome than how long it will end up lasting.
You weren't saying anything "personal" about Joe, were you, sweetpea? Can't take the heat, go fetch me a beer from the kitchen.
The vast majority of Iraqis will welcome the departure of Saddam. Even an intellectual sloth like you ought to realize that without asking me to educate you.
I was basing my remarks about Joezan on his past statements. It isn't something for which he should be ashamed...and I'm sure he isn't. The fact you feel the need to take up for him is much more insulting than anything I said. He is completely capable of snarking on me himself.
Remember - Iraq has lots of oil. Once Saddam is out and sanctions have been lifted, and with oil production up to former levels, and the revenues not going to a military budget out of all proportion to the country's means, Iraq will very quickly be on track - either under UN, US, or regional supervision -to become at least a better provider to its own people and a better neighbor to the region, than it was before Saddam.
ED:
Ignore judy - she is merely nipping at my ankles, as is the wont of a chihuahua. It really doesn't bother me, toothless as the attacks are.
That's a tricky issue. I doubt that Iraqi exile leaders--assuming that they can agree on a single leader--have legitimacy, and will lack power once in Iraq.
I am sure that there is opposition to Saddam within the military and/or the Republican Guard, particularly if they sense that he is leading them to destruction. The question for us then is whether we would accept someone whose only merit is that they were the first to jump off the sinking ship, regardless of how much blood he may have on his hands? Would we accept a high-ranking Baath Party operative for the same reason?
If the Bush administration is serious about building a democratic post-Saddam Iraq--of which I am highly skeptical--they have two historical models they can use: the occupations of Germany and Japan after WWII. Both involved lengthy US occupation and pro-consular US rule, and some compromises on purging the ranks of the previous regimes and on shaping the historiographical "myths" of the postwar countries.
Another option would be to have the reconstruction and rehabilitation take place under the auspices of the United Nations, with the United States providing the bulk of economic aid and expertise; again recognizing that this would entail a long-term commitment of financial and manpower resources.
U.S. demands for tough, new U.N. Security Council action against Iraq suffered a serious blow when Russian President Vladimir Putin ( news - web sites) called for a solution to the crisis using existing U.N. resolutions.
The United States and Britain are pushing for a new U.N. resolution that would include uncompromising language spelling out that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein ( news - web sites) would face serious consequences if he failed to allow weapons inspectors to proceed with their work unhindered.
The Bush administration, laying ground for a possible new conflict with Baghdad, has asked Israel in private talks to exercise the same restraint as during the 1991 Gulf War ( news - web sites) when it did not retaliate against attacks by 39 Iraqi Scud missiles.
Former chief U.N. arms inspector Richard Butler, addressing a business conference in Hong Kong, said Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon ( news - web sites) had indicated Israel would not be restrained if attacked by Iraq.
"My deepest fear in that context, if that occurs and the war escalates, is that Israel will use its nuclear weapons," Butler said. "If that happens, the world would have been changed beyond recognition, and I would fear that if that happens the state of Israel would cease to exist."
Apparently Mr. Butler thinks our nukes are aimed at Tel Aviv.
And THESE Imbeciles Want to Fight a War?
Besides wag the dog; besides the fact that he couldn't get Congress to approved AFTER the ELections, Bush is pushing now because, as we have repeatedly witnessed, he can't even keep his own regime together.
War without end. Amen.
Bush's comments about the Senate infuriated Daschle, aides said, because several fellow Democrats have criticized him for working closely with the president on a bipartisan war resolution. Bush's comments make it look like "he's getting played for a fool," said one Senate Democrat.
"We ought not politicize this war," Daschle said in his morning speech. "We ought not politicize the rhetoric about war and life and death." With Sen. Daniel K. Inouye (D-Hawaii), a wounded World War II veteran, sitting behind him, he added: "You tell those who fought in Vietnam and World War II they are not interested in the security of the American people. That is outrageous. Outrageous."
Daschle said Bush's political strategy has become increasingly clear only in recent days. It started with news reports earlier this summer that Republican Party pollster Matthew Dowd and Rove were telling fellow Republicans that talk of war favors them in the elections. Daschle said he grew more disturbed as he saw Vice President Cheney talking about Iraq at a fundraiser in Kansas this week.
In the Interest of Democracy, Let's Shut Em Down
Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Moron....
Into the Valley of Death Rides The King Moron - Intervention Magazine
After one year in Afghanistan, are U.S. troops close to winning the war or is Al Qaeda about to release a devastating death trap?
A Slate piece on Scott Ritter.
Sounds like a plan to me.
Do you think the techies can find a way to make all posts by jasper shrink to postage stamp size?
Since this is the Iraq thread, have you considered making the top and bottom thirds of the thread into no-fly zones for jasper's bombers?
This would mean that any post by jasper would disappear until it reached the middle third of all the posts in the thread. In other words, if it were post number 2000, it would totally disappear until there were 3000 posts in the thread.
Then, when there were 6000 posts, it would (o, joy!) disappear again.
How would I work that?
I donno. Don't you have, like, five techies who work for you? I was promised a crew of personal techies when I got my thread, except they have been delayed at the airport for technical reasons.
Or so arky tells me.
Not exactly sure, but apparently sooner than we may think:
"If Bush, as I believe, has reliable information on the fact that Saddam Hussein is making weapons of mass destruction, I cannot not support the policies of his government," Spielberg said.
The director added that those policies were "solid and rooted in reality".
Cruise also spoke out in support of the US president.
"Personally, I don't have all the information President Bush has," said the star. "But I believe Saddam has committed many crimes against humanity and his own people."
Now, you define "bravery" in Hollywood in whatever way suits you - this is a brave move, imo. Especially coming, as it does, a day after the Empress Babs gave "Gebhardt" his marching orders on "Sadam".
Why would anyone care about what he thinks on this subject, when he admits himself that he knows nothing in particular about it?
As for Spielberg: He believes (in) his president, which is touching... but doesn't say much about his intelligence either.
1) Their opinions are certainly as valid as Bottom Door's, JudyNobody'sHome, Jasper's, and the columnists' such as ex-film critic Frank Rich we're invited to read here every day.
2) It does, as Joe says, represent an independence of opinion from the predominant Hollywood groupthink, which is a positive step.
3) Since Hollywood is a major financial supporter of the Democratic Party, it's relevant politically.
LIAR!
"Well, I don't care what Cruise or Spielberg thinks about the war either"
DELUSIONAL!
Hate to break up the reactionary circle jerk that The Mote has become.
Eh? Was that really worthy of the uppercase exclamation-mark treatment?
I DON'T EVEN GO TO TOM CRUISE MOVIES!!!
Why would I lie about it?
Not everyone's world revolves around Hollywood and glomming onto the glitterati.
We will always have jexster, though.
But, AC, Cruise's previously stated fear of the US government should already have been enough to recommend his obviously very high LIQ (Liberal 'Intelligence' Quotient) to your approbation.
Mr. Gore's advisers described his speech as a genuine expression of sentiment about an issue with which he has long been closely identified, rather than an attempt to position himself for the 2004 presidential election. He wrote it after consulting a fairly far-flung group of advisers that included Rob Reiner, the actor and filmmaker.
NY Times
And has anybody looked in Noelle Bush's shoe lately?
Modern Urban Battles
Excerpt from the MAWTS-1
MOUT ACE Manual
Ex-42 says both that Saddam does have a weapons program and that the UN should give the US an additional resolution authorizing force.
Uuuurrp!
Ours is Not to Reason Why
The Fatuous Hypocrisy of Bush's Case for War
Ours is Not to Reason Why
The Fatuous Hypocrisy of Bush's Case for War
You're not at the porn site now, jex - you can use both hands.
Eleven years later, I have no doubt that Saddam is a menace, but the circumstances are different today. Then, Iraq violated the sovereignty of another state, and our response affirmed the framework of international law and security. Now, we would be violating Iraq's sovereignty without clear provocation, undertaking a preemptive war that is itself a destabilizing threat to international security.
Then, we had overwhelming international support; now, we face overwhelming opposition. ,
Now, engaged in a struggle against terrorist networks, we have an urgent need for cooperation in the Middle East and Europe...
Still, if some things were different, I could imagine supporting a war on Iraq -- and so, I suspect, could a good many other liberals.
If the Bush administration had proceeded differently -- if it had established a legal basis for military action, perhaps by working through the United Nations; if it had built allied support; if it had genuinely pursued alternatives to forcible "regime change" --war might have emerged, by general agreement here and abroad, as a necessary final resort.
The administration is belatedly trying to do some of these things, but its unseemly haste to reach a foreordained result raises doubts about its bona fides.
No Choice but War?
Boy Blunder's Big Bumble - a policy making bungled and inept unequaled in at least 100 years US history.
"The failure to take on Saddam after what the president said would produce such a collapse of confidence in the president that it would set back the war on
terrorism." Richard Perle
doubts about its bona fides READ FILTY LIAR JoeZ
"I am a man of peace. I want inspections to work." Imbecile and WarLord of Crawford
I was looking over the post election issue, as I had the pre-election ones to see whether this center-right mag had anything much to say of Shroeder's Bush Bashing.....Damn little...FA has an economic hard on for Shroeder, which isn't surprising given Germany's post-WWI & II mindset/experience and Shroeder's horrid record in that regard.
So I went to Der Spiegel, no english language available, but from what I can understand from the article's lead:
Gerhard Schrِders Opposition zum Irak-Feldzug hat durchaus Anhنnger in Amerika. Die Kriegsgegner melden sich zunehmend zu Wort. Meinungsumfragen zufolge ist der Durchschnittsamerikaner nicht so kriegslüstern wie seine Regierung
Some surprise that American public followed Shroder's Iraq line so closely and the observation, no doubt correct, that the US public is less bellicose and less enthusiastic for Bush War than the administration.
aaah German Bidniss -Arms by Krupp
- Zyclon B by IG Farben
More like twenty years of Big Talk, 20 minutes of action...then off to the next war I suppose.
Afghanistan Imperiled
by AHMED RASHID
"The notion that the incipient pummeling of Baghdad will usher in an Islamic Enlightenment is laughable." Joe Klein
Print this article
E-mail this article
Write to the editors
here are mounting fears in Afghanistan that President George W. Bush's war against Iraq will seriously compromise further attempts by the US-led Western alliance to stabilize Afghanistan--even as the US Defense Department appears to be finally acknowledging its failures in helping to rebuild the country.
Almost a year after the defeat of the Taliban, President Hamid Karzai's government is weaker than it was a few months ago, ethnic and political rivalries plague the country, the military power of the warlords has increased and there is a new wave of anti-Americanism from the Pashtun tribes in the east and south, who feel alienated and victimized both by the Kabul government and US forces.
Indeed, during the last year, politicians, pundits, and the media (including The New Republic) have used the phrase "weapons of mass destruction" as a constant shorthand for chemical, biological, and atomic arms. As of this writing, the phrase "weapons of mass destruction" had appeared in The New York Times in some 250 articles over the past month alone.
Their lethal potential is emphatically not equivalent. Chemical weapons are dangerous, to be sure, but not "weapons of mass destruction" in any meaningful sense. In actual use, chemical arms have proven less deadly than regular bombs, bullets, and artillery shells. Since the gassing of the trenches in World War I and the Holocaust a generation later, people have been terrified by the thought of death by gas--partly because chemical agents are invisible, partly because we visualize ghastly, helpless choking rather than vanishing in the flash of an explosion.
But pound for pound, chemical weapons are less lethal than conventional explosives and more difficult for an attacker or terrorist to use. It's also hard to see what the moral distinction is between being killed by gas and being blown up. Modern artillery shells create horrific scenes of carnage, and yet we don't view them as weapons of "mass destruction," though firing them into an unsuspecting city could readily produce more deaths than gas.
Similarly, biological weapons are widely viewed with dread, though in actual use they have rarely done great harm.
Deliberate, systematic distribution of weapons-grade anthrax in the United States in 2001 killed five people--terrible, but hardly "mass destruction" compared to the jet-fuel explosions that killed 3,000 on September 11 and the conventional bomb that killed 168 in Oklahoma City in 1995. Because actual attempts to use bioweapons have been few, it's hard to be sure; but it may well be that, like chemical weapons, biological agents will prove less dangerous than conventional arms, as well as more difficult for armies or terrorists to use.
What, exactly, are we waiting for?
TNR
Its not ABOUT WMD.
So what exactly IS it about?
- bringing democracy to the Middle East?
- world peace?
-regional security?
- US security !?!?!?!
- Poppy's revenge?
- elder son rivalry with father?
- take the Saud out of Arabia?
- Egypt the prize?
- raising a Texas steer shit curtain over new satellites in the Middle East?
- Taking the heat off of Sharon?
- Taking the domestic political heat off of Bush?
- a Napoleon complex?
- a military industrial complex?
- meetin Jaysus in the air off the banks of the Jordan in Fundie Fun Gas Masks?
Or is Bush just a Moron?
Filthy liar eh Z?
President Bush faces a new obstacle to building strong bipartisan backing for his strategy to confront Iraq and dismantle its deadly weapons program: Senate Majority Leader Thomas A. Daschle.
Daschle, once a strong if unlikely advocate of granting Bush the right to strike Saddam Hussein unilaterally, has grown increasingly distrustful of the president's political motives and effort to win the backing of most Democrats, according to lawmakers and aides.
Daschle said he still feels slighted by Bush's remark Monday that the Democratic-controlled Senate doesn't care about national security because it opposes his vision of a new Department of Homeland Security. And Daschle openly wonders to colleagues if Bush is springing a political trap by virtually daring Democrats to oppose his version of the proposed war resolution so close to the Nov. 5 elections.
"It's unfortunately very counterproductive to use the rhetoric the administration has been employing," Daschle said in an interview yesterday. "This has complicated things."
I am afraid, as much as I think of TDaschle, that he has only himself to blame. Unlike early suckers such as Kennedy and George Miller, he cannot plead ignorance of the fact that when it comes to dealings with GWB the rule is spare the rod, spoil the Moron (the corollary "give him an inch...) Tom Delay, Ariel Sharon, Trent Lott, John McCain, Tony Blair, even PantyWaist Powell as a negative pregnant of the premise, have shown this clearly.
GWB is a spoiled brat of miniscule intellect who due to a developmental disorder is an emotional pre-pubescent. Unless he fears you, he will screw you.
