Iraqi Perspectives. Was Bush Right?

Another report is out for us bloggers to study. The Iraqi Perspective Project is available on the web. The more we learn about Saddam’s rule the better.

Posted by Jack at March 26, 2006 11:01 PM
Comments
Comment #136021

Jack,
I could not agree with you more. Although I had a clue that the WMD argument was a Red Herine, the fact that Saddam was using his position as a Leader of a Nation to directly pay for attacks Americans (Isral University) after 9/11 meant that he stepped outside Humanity’s Law and as such needed to be brought to Justice. My problem is that President Bush took the Low Road instead of the High Road to deal with the problem and IMHO has allowed his staff to much control over the War on Terror.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at March 27, 2006 12:22 AM
Comment #136022

Bush has no idea what is happening inside this non nation and ask why bush is working with the red china boys? and why he is meeting with fox, to sell us out?

Posted by: Fred Dawes at March 27, 2006 12:30 AM
Comment #136026

Aldous,
It is not a matter of “Invade.” It is a matter of the removal of some so called Humans. And that could be accomplished by a team so are you suggesting that America play World Cop or seek the Legal Right of International Law to hold other Nations Leaders accountable for their Words and Action? Could the United States become the Cops while the EU become The Courts of The World without losing the Peace in the rest of the World? However, be careful for what you wish for because it might just come true.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at March 27, 2006 12:54 AM
Comment #136030

Fred Dawes -

Bush has no idea what is happening inside this non nation and ask why bush is working with the red china boys? and why he is meeting with fox, to sell us out?

—It’s quotes like this that justify use of the term “hysterical”

Could you come out and make a statement, please? Or just more incoherent anti- Bush, anti- US spewage?

Posted by: Beijing Rob at March 27, 2006 1:18 AM
Comment #136032

Aldous,
That is why the Independents and Demo-Publicans need to start hold our political leaders to speaking about what is Politically Unalienable Correct instead of the “Blame Game” they have been playing for the last 35 years so that they could learn to be Politically Correct in their speech. Now my question is can the Democrats & Republicans get there or does the Americam Spirit need new Statesmen in Washington?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at March 27, 2006 1:36 AM
Comment #136041

Henry,
I do believe you are closing in on the true problem that has faced America for the past 30 years or so. The term “Statesman” denotes a person of higher than usual integrity, stature and intelligence. One who rises above. Someone people look to because of who they are, what the represent and how they have lived their lives. This is much different than a “Politican.”

President G.H.W. Bush understood clearly the issues and I would probably put him there based upon his tirelessness and patience with forming a coalition and the use of the military in a strategically sound plan. His stopping short and the reasons behind that still seem a bit murky which gives each side the opportunity to blame the other. However, as Commander-in-Chief, I do not believe that President G.H.W. Bush ever shirked his responsibility for his decisions. That takes a Statesman.

He had a firm grasp of the importance of international cooperation, world opinion and rationally laying out the facts based on good evidence. Granted, some were a bit staged, like the Kuawiti’s ambassador’s daughter testifying before the house (which I believe wasn’t specified when she was presented)…

Believe me… I am in no way, shape or form a Nixon fan… I was to young to pop a cork when he resigned. When it came to foreign affairs I remember even his staunchest opponents were not willing to deny him that.

This, I believe accounts for a significant amount of his “rehabilitation” of his reputation before he died.

I am hoping to have the time, and energy to read this report because I believe that it is vital to our future military.

The administration has denied or reluctantly admitted then pointed fingers any time questions of mistakes were made. Some of us who have been labeled so many names for our opinions opposing the justification of the lead up to the war as insufficient to justify it… that we were not pleased with the “beat them on the field and they will come around” strategy as it was being waged have been waiting years to hear that we were not stupid, naieve, wrong or simply partisan. We have never received it. I doubt we ever will.

We need to learn from our mistakes. I do not see it as reasonable that we invade or be seen as being invaders by a population and hope to win the “hearts and minds” of the people… unless we do extrordinary things incredibly well… and that can only be done through a thorough understanding of what worked, what didn’t and proposals to fix what didn’t.

It also requires a President who is seen as above politics, has done everything possible to find a solution (not a simple, “Do it with us or we do it alone… but it will be done!” and then blame the UN or France or whomever doesn’t agree).

Remember the silly Freedom Fries and Freedom Toast? In retrospect it looks over the top, politically staged with each politician trying to outdo the other to get in front of the cameras. Heck, even the Muslims have stepped aboard that choo-choo train by changing the names of their pastries they used to call “Danish.”

From the table of contents and what little I have read so far, it has been an historical analysis of Iraq and the Baath party. I am sure that it will get into the terrible things that he did, which we don’t deny.

I don’t see any Statesmen on the horizon… well one or two but I will keep them to myself to keep the discussion on topic.

Posted by: Darren7160 at March 27, 2006 6:11 AM
Comment #136042

Darren7160,
If you are old enough to remeber the 60’s & 70’s than you surely remeber why The Elders and Powers-that-Be forced the Democrats and Republicans to learn to be Politically Correct in their arguments. Because the words F-You is not an acceptable way to carry om an intelligent debate over an issue of National Status. In fact, a political debate should leave all emotion out of it because there is no Love or Hate in the Absolute of The Law only Pure Logic and Reason.

Now Americans must ask themselves if thei political party can grow up or does the Children of the 70’s need to find two political parties that are not afriad of seeking that what is known to be Right & True Regardless by the Intent of the Law that We live by.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at March 27, 2006 7:42 AM
Comment #136057

Darren

“The term “Statesman” denotes a person of higher than usual integrity, stature and intelligence. One who rises above. Someone people look to because of who they are, what the represent and how they have lived their lives. This is much different than a “Politican.”“

and Henry,

“Now Americans must ask themselves if their political party can grow up or does the Children of the 70’s need to find two political parties that are not afriad of seeking that what is known to be Right & True Regardless by the Intent of the Law that We live by.”

The true “Statesmen” in this country haven’t nescessarily been the smartest guys in the room, only those that had the common sense and honesty to do what was right when the job was thrust upon them.
I would submit that all this wailing and gnashing of teeth about our political history for the last 35 or 40 years is a waste of time.
Our news media, our entertainment media, and indeed our politicians, are merely a reflection of what we, in this country have become.
Everybody bitches about the sad state of Hollywood, yet the same movies we complain about make hundreds of millions of dollars at the box office. This is a American bastion of true capitalism. Sombody has to be watching these movies or they wouldn’t be made.
By the same token we Americans whine and bitch about the coruption and ineptness in Washington, but we keep electing the same folks year after year.
This is a true reflection of America, and some day we will stop pretending and realize that we are who we are, and unless the mindset of the American people changes drasticly, nothing much is going to change in this country.

Posted by: Rocky at March 27, 2006 10:03 AM
Comment #136059
Or just more incoherent anti- Bush, anti- US spewage?

Posted by: Beijing Rob at March 27, 2006 01:18 AM


Hey Boobby, tell me how Fred was anti-American? Sounds like he’s concerned that Bush is behaving in a traitorous manner by dividing our nation for his personnal politcal gains.

Posted by: Dave at March 27, 2006 10:47 AM
Comment #136060

Dave,

“Hey Boobby, tell me how Fred was anti-American? Sounds like he’s concerned that Bush is behaving in a traitorous manner by dividing our nation for his personnal politcal gains.”

The division in this country started long before Bush.
He is merely the head of the pimple, so to speak.

Posted by: Rocky at March 27, 2006 10:55 AM
Comment #136065

Jack, the time to learn about Saddam’s regime was before the invasion. Learning about it afterward is putting the cart before the horse, don’t you think?

Many are going to use this information to justify the quagmire we are now in. But, that is a false argument. Since, the Iraqi project simply will assert that S. Hussein was a horrid leader. The day we caught him, was the day the Iraqi people were liberated. That was the day the U.S. should have begun implementing pullout plans. Victory was achieved. To now ask our military to try to educate and motivate a divided nation on how to be nice to each other and stay unified at huge costs to our military and taxpayers, can never be justified by the Iraqi Project.

And that my friend, is the issue which many will try to obfuscate.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 27, 2006 11:13 AM
Comment #136071

“I witnessed a whole family being tested on suffocating gas and dying in the gas chamber. The parents, a son, and a daughter…The parents were vomiting and dying, but till the very last moment they tried to save the kids by doing mouth-to-mouth breathing.”

This is a quote from an eye witness to the genocide in North Korea, not Iraq. Read more about it here, Jack, and tell me why you aren’t applying the same standard for invading North Korea as you are for Bush already having invaded Iraq.

Posted by: Mister Magoo at March 27, 2006 11:39 AM
Comment #136072

Sorry the North Korea link didn’t work previously. Here it is:

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/02/08/an_auschwitz_in_korea/

Posted by: Mister Magoo at March 27, 2006 11:40 AM
Comment #136075

A lot of interesting stuff will come out of these documents, but that’s not what I expect Bushies will hype up. Bushies will go on and on about how this document or that document shows that Sadaam was really a bad guy, etc. We know that already and it doesn’t justify spending trillions of dollars to overthrow a government that was going to go kaput shortly on its own.

I have to say I am really surprised that Russia was giving American intelligence to Sadaam during the invasion. Well, not surprised Russia would do that, but surprised Bush shared the information with Putin. How embarassing that Putin made Bush dance like the monkey he is.

Posted by: Max at March 27, 2006 12:13 PM
Comment #136077

Jack,

I agree with David.
This administration has wasted it’s political capital by being secretive, and by entering a pre-emptive war on assumptions.

The only thing that everyone agreed on before the Iraq invasion was that Saddam was a bad guy, and that he treated his populous badly.
Alienating the rest of the world did nothing to help us fight the real war on terror, and in the worst case pushed those on the fence away from the rightfull cause.

Attempting to justify acts already committed only serves to further erode the the leadership role that America presumes to have.
History may, or may not, bear out what has happened in Iraq. That won’t stop the needless loss of life in the present.
If we can’t get the leadership in Iraq to stand up to those violent factions that threaten to throw that country into civil war, then why are we still there?

Oh, and BTW, the next time we invade a country premptively, we better be damn sure that we aren’t assuming too much.

Posted by: Rocky at March 27, 2006 12:16 PM
Comment #136080

Jack,
This is totally off of the subject, but I’ve been away for almost 3 weeks, and while I have periodically found a computer to read on, I haven’t been able to comment on it.

During the past three weeks, it looks like you’ve been holding down the Republican Blog all by yourself.

I was just wondering where the other conservatives have gone…..

Just thought I’d bring up what was to me interesting point.

BTW, you’ve done a great job of “holding down the fort”, so to speak.

Posted by: Linda H. at March 27, 2006 12:21 PM
Comment #136081

Magoo

Two reasons. We did not invade Iraq for humanitarian reasons. We thought Iraq was a dangerous country in a dangerous region and that the situation would get worse.

N. Korea is very bad, maybe worse, but contained, more or less. But the real reason is real politics. N. Korea already has the deterrent capability that Saddam was trying to develop. You could (and history shows we did) invade Iraq without setting off a major regional or world conflict.

North Korea also has powerful backers in the Chinese. They could stop them in a couple of weeks if they wanted to.

Posted by: Jack at March 27, 2006 12:22 PM
Comment #136083

Linda

The way it works, we have about a dozen “editors”. We don’t know each other except by the blog and we don’t coordinate.

I try to write something if it looks like nobody else is going to do it. That is why you tend to see my entries near midnight. I don’t like to leave a blank day.

It might be good to have a few others opinions, however.

Posted by: Jack at March 27, 2006 12:29 PM
Comment #136084

Yes, I’m still just a simple man trying to survive in a complex world. But I’m not stupid. I have been a big supporter of the Iraq War from the beginning. Personally, I didn’t care if their were WMDs, but Hussein had to go. He’d been thumbing his nose at the world long enough. But, recent events in Iraq and Afghanistan have give me pause to reconsider my position. I’m beginning to believe that we should pull out immediately. The different factions of Islam have been killing each other off for centuries and they’ve given no indication that they are willing to set aside the hatred they hold for each other and help build a democratic Iraq. Hussein used force to keep them under control, the same way the Soviet Union kept the lid on Yugoslavia. So far, we haven’t even been able to do that much. We could have won in Vietnam if the will had been there, but we surrendered and got out. Maybe it’s time to wave the white flag in Iraq and Afghanistan and get out.

Posted by: Bill M. at March 27, 2006 12:36 PM
Comment #136086

Rocky,

Sorry, I meant “Bobby”

As for divisive politics, it’s always been around. In fact, it used to be nastier, but it had been focused more on the candidate than the electorate. Bushie has forced the dividing lines further apart, rather than closer as the phraseology implies and his campaign promised.

Posted by: Dave at March 27, 2006 12:39 PM
Comment #136091

Jack, Schlatman et al…

NOBODY is arguing about how evil Sadaam was. That is a fact we all accept.

The questions are these:

Wouldn’t it be better if we had the blue-hat support of the UN peacekeeprs? We could have also had the UN supply and financial support as well, but nooooo. not from this administration.

So what do we get without it?
well…we lose moral authority in the eyes of more of the world who already think of us as behaving like an EMPIRE. We make more enemies and strain friendships. We bear the brunt of the cost of the conflict both in lives and in our economic stability and long term health. We get to be inextricably involved in a tar-baby conflict we cannot get out of and which is subsiding into civil war more and more all the time.

You could call this merely ‘procedure’ if it makes you feel better, Jack, but it’s soooo much more significant than just procedure. The cost for doing things the wrong way is nothing short of catastrophic.

RGF

Posted by: RGF at March 27, 2006 12:53 PM
Comment #136092

Dave,

Bush more and more seems like a pawn in a much bigger game. Maybe it’s that “bunny in the headlights” look he has.
He is the one that only appears in charge, but I think that Bush is only a thin slice of a bigger slab of baloney.

The voters have been sold a bill of goods for decades. Until true statesmen stand up to be counted, the voters will have to make do with what we have.

Posted by: Rocky at March 27, 2006 12:56 PM
Comment #136107

RGF:

Wouldn’t it be better if we had the blue-hat support of the UN peacekeeprs?

It would have been much better. The problem is that in reality, it was never going to happen. The UN showed its cards by continuing to issue resolution after resolution condemning Saddam’s behavior and actions. Reminded me of a parent who constantly threatens a child with a spanking, but never gives one. Children learn, and so did Saddam.

The UN does many good things from a humanitarian perspective. They’ve not been very good in the military realm, or the peacekeeping realm. Look at Kosovo and the Balkans, the Congo, Rwanda, Sudan etc. It would be great if the UN had the capability to defend the downtrodden in these areas, but if they do, they certainly have not acted on it. I think they do not have the capability.

In essence, it would be greater still if we didn’t even need blue hat peacekeepers in our world. But that is more reality than to expect the UN to solve problems that require force of some kind.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at March 27, 2006 1:54 PM
Comment #136111

Look the whole idea that there were never weapons of mass destruction is ridiculous. Sadaam used chemical weapons (aka WMD) on his own people. Everyone knows this and Bush was willing to do something to stop this tyrant. Let’s stop analyzing every little political move and let’s start celebrating America’s renewed reputation as the leader of the free world. The world is full of peacekeepers and there is very little real peace. America has finally stepped up to the plate and become peacemakers! This is an EMPIRE to be proud of.

Posted by: Michael Harmon at March 27, 2006 2:26 PM
Comment #136114

Michael,

“Let’s stop analyzing every little political move and let’s start celebrating America’s renewed reputation as the leader of the free world. The world is full of peacekeepers and there is very little real peace. America has finally stepped up to the plate and become peacemakers! This is an EMPIRE to be proud of.”

Empires come and empires go. It’s the go part that worries me.
You assume that the as “leaders of the free world” that the world wants to be lead by America.
Doesn’t the rest of the world get a say in just who they want to follow?

Ah, those arrogant Americans.

Posted by: Rocky at March 27, 2006 2:39 PM
Comment #136120
Look the whole idea that there were never weapons of mass destruction is ridiculous.

No one’s saying he never had them, only that the trade embargos and inspections worked and reduced them to nothing. Even Bush has acknowledged this. Let me say that again: Even Bush has admitted there were no WMDs in Iraq.

Another thing: I read today that 90% of the U.S. soldiers think we are in Iraq as payback for the 9/11 attacks. Shouldn’t our boys know what they are fighting for? It’s criminal that Bush isn’t straight with them.

Where’s this so-called “left wing mainstream media”, and if they are so effective why do so many people still think Iraq had a hand in 9/11?

Posted by: Max at March 27, 2006 2:58 PM
Comment #136121

joebagodonuts,

with respect, I disagree. But regardless of how effective or unaffective the UN would have been, we were legally obligated after 1441 and our treaty and membership status in the UN, to honor the fact that the UN remained ‘seized’ of the issue and the right determine if military action was required. We violated both American and International law and that really is the bottom line. It has earned us far greater ire from the world and ultimately made us less safe. It has also cost us the moral high ground. We now look and act like an Empirial force. The founding fathers are whirling, not just turning over, in their graves.

micheal harmon,

Nobody ever said sadaam NEVER had WMDs. We all know about what he did to the Kurds. The point is that he NO LONGER had WMDs and now we know that what the weapons inspectors were telling us was the truth. THEY WEREN’T THERE! That means there was no “clear and present danger” and thus, again, the war was illegal. The only sensible question to ask is whether Bush either knew or should have known the WMDs weren’t there. I suspect he knew, but we never be able to prove that. We do know he did everything he could to weaken the evidence to the contrary and to strengthen the notion that the WMDs still existed. Isn’t that enough? I fail to understand why Bush has any support left at all. What would he have to do before you would realize he has betrayed us all?

RGF

Posted by: RGF at March 27, 2006 3:01 PM
Comment #136123

The United States has used Sadaam Hussein for Right-Wing EXTREME purposes throughout his political life, as the United States controlled his rise to power and his means of supply for whatever destruction he did in his country. The United States has brought him along to do their political wants for many years and now the Right-Wing EXTREME of the United States is through with him. The reason the Right-Wing EXTREME in the United States thought Sadaam had WMD is because the Right-Wing EXTREME of the United States supplied him with WMD, but Sadaam figured out their plan and destroyed all the WMD the United States had given him, because he was wise enough to see that the powerful United States had set him up for their greedy greater purpose, his oil and the Iraqi markets. The Right-Wing EXTREME is involved up to their chins in whatever destruction Sadaam Hussein brought against his people.

What I can’t understand is how anyone in the United States can determine that the United States is helping the Iraqi people by killing so many of them and desroying every thing they have except a few places for photo ops.

When the United States attacked Iraq to protect the Iraqi people from Sadaam, how many Iraqis have been killed by the United States? Way over 100,000. Do you call this protecting the Iraqi people?

When some Iraqi citizens tried to kill Sadaam, and failed, how many Iraqis did Sadaam kill to destroy the rebellion? 157

All people who believe the garbage of the Right-Wing EXTREME Regime of the United States are being deceived by the Right-Wing EXTREME and need to have the same therapy Andrea Yates is getting.

If you are trying to save a country, town or village, how can you decide it is OK to destroy it. When Andrea Yates lost her mind and killed her five children by drowning them in the bathtub to save them, the people thought it was an awfull thing that she could do that, but the Government of the United States can do the very same thing, and the people think it is OK. There is something terribly wrong with this picture.

The United States did not go to Iraq to liberate the Iraqi people from Sadaam, only an idiot would arrive at that conclusion.

The United States is in Iraq for the added value from marketing and resources to be gained by United States industrialists. Iraq is not receiving the benefit of their own resources and marketing. Who is? The United States. Is the majority of the people of the United States getting any benefit from this undertaking? NO. Who is getting the benefit from the new Iraqi markets and Iraqi resources? The wealthy Right-Wing EXTREME industrialists of the United States.

An “Attack of Terror” on Iraq is what this is. Iraq did not attack the United States in any way and had no ability even to attack their neighboring countries.

The Iraqi citizen militias are doing their best to protect their homeland from the EXTREME United States “Attack of Terror” being continually perpetrated against the Iraqi people.

We have no democracy in the United States. The United States government is FASCIST. First we the people must have democracy in the United States before we can purport to be bringing democracy to other countries. THERE IS NO DEMOCRACY IN THE UNITED STATES.

Posted by: Martha at March 27, 2006 3:14 PM
Comment #136128

If my country were decimated for the purpose of “aweing” the despot in charge unnecessarily, if a hundred thousand of my peoples were killed, if I were tortured needlessly and then left in the desert in the middle of the night I don’t know how I would react, but it wouldn’t be pretty.

Posted by: Max at March 27, 2006 3:40 PM
Comment #136131

I went through the Foreign Affairs article re the report and took some block quotes. I think they show why most of the world thought Saddam still had WMD in 2003 (even Saddam may have thought so) and how unstable and dangerous the place was and how likely Saddam was to miscalculate with violent results.

Excerpts:

Iraq and International Terrorism

The Saddam Fedayeen also took part in the regime’s domestic terrorism operations and planned for attacks throughout Europe and the Middle East. In a document dated May 1999, Saddam’s older son, Uday, ordered preparations for “special operations, assassinations, and bombings, for the centers and traitor symbols in London, Iran and the self-ruled areas [Kurdistan].” Preparations for “Blessed July,” a regime-directed wave of “martyrdom” operations against targets in the West, were well under way at the time of the coalition invasion.
Saddam Thought France & Russia Would Prevent an Invasion

Judging from his private statements, the single most important element in Saddam’s strategic calculus was his faith that France and Russia would prevent an invasion by the United States. According to Aziz, Saddam’s confidence was firmly rooted in his belief in the nexus between the economic interests of France and Russia and his own strategic goals

Ibrahim Ahmad Abd al-Sattar, the Iraqi army and armed forces chief of staff, claimed that Saddam believed that even if his international supporters failed him … Washington would rapidly bow to international pressure to halt the war.

During the first ten days of the war, Iraq asked Russia, France, and China not to support cease-fire initiatives because Saddam believed such moves would legitimize the coalition’s presence in Iraq.

How Much Saddam Convinced Everyone He Still Had WMD

When it came to weapons of mass destruction (WMD), Saddam attempted to convince one audience that they were gone while simultaneously convincing another that Iraq still had them. Coming clean about WMD and using full compliance with inspections to escape from sanctions would have been his best course of action for the long run. Saddam, however, found it impossible to abandon the illusion of having WMD, especially since it played so well in the Arab world.

For many months after the fall of Baghdad, a number of senior Iraqi officials in coalition custody continued to believe it possible that Iraq still possessed a WMD capability hidden away somewhere …

Telling Saddam the Truth was Dangerous

A 1982 incident vividly illustrated the danger of telling Saddam what he did not want to hear. At one low point during the Iran-Iraq War, Saddam asked his ministers for candid advice. With some temerity, the minister of health, Riyadh Ibrahim, suggested that Saddam temporarily step down and resume the presidency after peace was established. Saddam had him carted away immediately. The next day, pieces of the minister’s chopped-up body were delivered to his wife.

Posted by: Jack at March 27, 2006 3:54 PM
Comment #136132

Max,

You hit the nail on the head. It is clear that the bushies have simply lost sight of the ability to see anything but their own view. We are earning orselves enemies but handling things the way we are. We are earning new enemies and strengthening the enemies we already have. There nothing in the actions of this administration that is doing anything but us, ultimately, LESS SAFE AS AMERICANS…not more.

RGF

Posted by: RGF at March 27, 2006 3:55 PM
Comment #136134

Again, Jack,

The ends do not justify the means. The issue is not whether Sadaam was evil; he was. Of that, we are all in agreement. The issue is that we can do no good in the manner in which we are acting now.

RGF

Posted by: RGF at March 27, 2006 4:01 PM
Comment #136137

It appears that most of the people that write in these blogs believe that the media actually reports the facts.

If the missiles were flying into the U.S. (and they have!), I’d rather be standing behind George W Bush than Bill Clinton!

I’ve never thought of myself as an extreme-ist, but if that’s what people call me so-be-it. I think that America has as much right to spread democracy (yes, I said democracy) and free market economy as the Arabs have to spread the fear of those things. This isn’t about politics, it’s about culture and we are trying to effect a change in the culture more than we are trying to change a government. If we show the Iraqi’s a taste of true freedom, they will embrace it and tear down their ‘burqa curtain’.

Call me an idiot, old-fashioned, I don’t care, but I believe in the United States and I believe we are the best example of freedom that the world has right now, and, I believe that history will favor George W unless the revisionists win their battle.

Posted by: Michael Harmon at March 27, 2006 4:06 PM
Comment #136139

I disagree that everyone believed Iraq had weapons. Scott Ritter was a U.N. Chief Weapons Inspector in Iraq in 1991 and 1998. Here he is speaking with Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh.

“SEYMOUR HERSH: One of the things that’s overwhelming to me as a journalist was the notion that everybody believed before March of ’03 that Saddam had weapons. This is just an urban myth. The fact of the matter is that – and my personal experience — and this, I ran into Scott when? In about 1998, 1999? And in talking to people who worked on the UNSCOM and also on the International Atomic Energy Agency, which did a lot of very first-rate reporting. And you know some of the people who wrote some of the reports, former intelligence agents from Britain, among others, they were pretty much clear by 1997 that there was very little likelihood that Saddam had weapons, and there were many people in our State Department, our Department of Energy, in the C.I.A., who didn’t believe there were weapons. And I think history is going to judge the — what I can almost call almost mass hysteria we had about Saddam and weapons. And one of the questions that keeps on coming up now is: Why didn’t Saddam tell us? Did he tell us?

SCOTT RITTER: Well, of course, he told. Look, let’s be honest. The Iraqis were obligated in 1991 to submit a full declaration listing the totality of their holdings of W.M.D., and they didn’t do this. They lied. They failed to declare a nuclear weapons program. They failed to declare a biological weapons program, and they under-declared their chemical and ballistic missile capabilities.

Saddam Hussein intended to retain a strategic deterrent capability, not only to take care of Iran, but also to focus on Israel. What he didn’t count on was the tenacity of the inspectors. And very rapidly by June 1991 we had compelled him into acknowledging that he had a nuclear weapons program, and we pushed him so hard that by the summer of 1991, in the same way that a drug dealer who has police knocking at his door flushes drugs down a toilet to get rid of his stash so that he can tell the cops, “I don’t have any drugs,” the Iraqis, not wanting to admit that they lied, flushed their stash down the toilet. They blew up all of their weapons and buried it in the desert, and then tried to maintain the fiction that they had told the truth.

And by 1992 they were compelled again because of the tenacity of inspectors to come clean. People say why didn’t Saddam Hussein admit being disarmed? In 1992 they submitted a declaration that said everything’s been destroyed, we have nothing left. In 1995 they turned over the totality of their document cache. Again, not willingly, it took years of inspections to pressure them. But the bottom line is by 1995 there were no more weapons in Iraq, there were no more documents in Iraq, there was no more production capability in Iraq, because we were monitoring the totality of Iraq’s industrial infrastructure with the most technologically advanced, the most intrusive arms control regime in the history of arms control.

And we knew that while we couldn’t account for everything that the Iraqis said they had destroyed, we could only account for ninety to ninety-five percent, we knew that: (a) we had no evidence of a retained capability and, (b) no evidence that Iraq was reconstituting. And furthermore, the C.I.A. knew this. The British intelligence knew this; Israeli intelligence knew this; German intelligence. The whole world knew this. They weren’t going to say that Iraq was disarmed, because nobody could say that. But they definitely knew that the Iraqi capability regarding W.M.D. had been reduced to as near to zero as you could bring it and that Iraq represented a threat to no one when it came to weapons of mass destruction. “

Posted by: Max at March 27, 2006 4:07 PM
Comment #136140

Rocky,
I will agree with you 110% there! Politicans, Holywood, the media, everyone shoots for the lowest common demoninator… which sadly is where the majority is and thus the votes, ticket sales and ratings.

I have mentioned on here that even as a liberal I wouldn’t watch half the garbage on tv with a gun to my head. But, as a liberal, I am glad it is there even though I don’t want to watch it. I just have to be a bit more selective and work a bit harder to find something worth watching… or read a book.

Also, politics has become, what I refer to as playground behavior. “I am better than you at…”, “Yeah, well you are a doo-doo head!” Most people stand on the side lines and encourage them on.

In the immigration blog I have tried to just remove the rhetoric, hyperbole and hysteria so things could be discussed. Even though I repeatedly mentioned I was for reform… it was ignored because I wanted it to be a rational discussion without the need to demonize the human beings we call “illegals.” No luck.

Even though I agreed that something needed to be done, because I wasn’t as worked up… as willing to denigrate these people… that was the continual focus of their replies to me.

I left the computer with a lot of saddness because I was driving over to my sister’s to help her take her 15 year old retriever to the vet (yes… it was that time)… the sky was blue, the weather warm for this time of year… I drove past this little park a block from my home. I glanced there and saw a young Latino family… husband, wife and 2 or 3 little children.

It seems some would want to hate them, even though we don’t know from looking their immigration status. Maybe they want the right to ask for “Your Papers Please.” to anyone who looks different. I don’t know. I just saw the epitome of what we want in America for our families… A warm day to share with our children at the park.

No. I refuse to dehumanize children of God because someone wants me to. Maybe it is fear that if we see them as humans we can’t still deal with the problem… and that is sad too.

Tighened fists, pressed lips and glaring eyes are not conducive to discussion. Neither is name calling or posturing before the press as a means to, even though in agreement with the opposition, diminish them for later election gains.

It has always been thought that the second term of a President was when he was able to do the work he needed. The re-election is behind him… he has nothing to lose and it is time to build his “legacy.”

I don’t see that happening. I see the Republicans and the Conservatives jumping ship and on the talk shows distancing themselves…

Personally, I think that there was way too much pressure to do things too fast. Which I find strange because Conservatives are not big fans of major change or hasty decisions.

If there is a legacy worth preserving, it will most likely be this war. What the legacy will say, and the historians will say depends on reports like this… not blogs.

As I mentioned in my immigration posting. In 10 years I want to have my class open their books to this period… and I want them to be proud. So often it seems history reveals conduct that, I guess, can only be explained by trying to make people understand the hysteria of the time. Such as the relocation camps on WWII.

Some want to blame political correctness and a liberal interpretation of history as the reason… but kids are smart. They don’t automatically assume someone different is bad. That comes later, which makes me believe it is a conditioned response.

I am just sad and tired. I am tired of War on Poverty, War on Crime, War on Drugs, War on Terrorists, War on this and a war on that.

I know the terrorists were evil people. I know that Sadam was a bastard (if I may use that word on this site), I know that this thing and that thing needs to be dealt with.

I just want the discussion to be more than cliches that fit on bumper stickers or 10 second sound bites. I want intelligent conversation and debate based on facts that aren’t denied because they weaken an argument… (People who deny reality to strengthen their argument just end up weakening their integrity”.

I don’t want to have people trying to stir my emotions, rile my anger, increase my sense of outrage or to pander to the daker side of human nature.

Alas

Posted by: Darren7160 at March 27, 2006 4:10 PM
Comment #136145

Michael Harmon,
You haven’t by chance been reading those Culture War books have you?

“If we show the Iraqi’s a taste of true freedom, they will embrace it and tear down their ‘burqa curtain’.”

This was the entire premise of the “no need for lots of troops.” Once they are free of Sadam they will freely embrace democracy… It isn’t happening yet.

Completely disregarding the 1,500 years of differences between Sunni and Shites and the history of the Kurds and other religous, cultural and historical issues.

If we want to compare cultures, we also need to be aware of other cultures than us and “them” because “them” are actually a lot of different peoples.

“Call me an idiot, old-fashioned, I don’t care, but I believe in the United States and I believe we are the best example of freedom that the world has right now, and, I believe that history will favor George W unless the revisionists win their battle.”

Historians are people searching for the reasons behind the simple a+b=c of an historical timeline. I believe that this was discussed in the opening of the report that Jack submitted. They discussed how they were uniquely able to use source material to get “behind the one side’s perspective” to see how the other side thought.

Revisionsists are people denying the truth because it is not something they wish to admit or deal with. Such as the evidence here and elsewhere about there not being “everyone knew Sadam had weapons of mass destruction.” Calling it historical revisionism does not make it so… and it denies those of us who have been consistent in our beliefs our “history”.

I guess the media can also be blamed and called revisionsists and partisan when they show President Bush being informed of the danger of the levee before landfall… when he said that “No one could have seen this happening.”

Don’t blame the messenger. History will be written and there will be differences… however, if there is an interest in presenting the facts as professionally as can be… I would trust an historian rather than an author or a political party’s attempts to disparage the interpretation.

Academics do have standards.. they do value their reputation and they are much harsher on those that violate their ethics than any political party has ever evidenced.

http://www.historians.org/affiliates/index.cfm

I am a vet. I too love this country… for what it stands for and what it can do that is good. That does not mean that it does everything good. That means constant vigalence… You mentioned President Clinton… I wonder, did you say the same things and support him just as strongly?

Or, is your belief that American is only the President that is in office at the time?

Posted by: Darren7160 at March 27, 2006 4:45 PM
Comment #136152

micheal harmon,

We are the best example of OUR freedom. It is contextual. We cannot impose what works for us on those who don’t want it. That will NEVER work. As for cultural change, I agree with the observation, but if you are suggesting that we SHOULD effect a CULTURAL change on the rest of the world…well that is never going to work either because of the very things you yourself observe about our own culture (Hollywood, TV, etc.). oh and that reveals another lack of underestanding on your part as well. The burqa was forced on women in Afghanistan, not Iraq. It is not a part of Iraqi culture any more than the practice of wearing a yamulka has anything to do with being a Baptist.

As for your comment about standing behind Bush rather than Clinton…I agree. I’d hate to lose Clinton to a missile so if anyone aims one at me, I won’t “stand behind” him.

RGF

Posted by: RGF at March 27, 2006 5:17 PM
Comment #136229

Rocky,
As a person who is old enough to remember why people “Dropped Out” over Society failing to come to terms with that which is known and can be proven to be Right and Wrong, I am shocked that you “would submit that all this wailing and gnashing of teeth about our political history for the last 35 or 40 years is a waste of time.
Our news media, our entertainment media, and indeed our politicians, are merely a reflection of what we, in this country have become.”

And while just like the 70’s the Leadership of our Country cater to those over 50, the Youth of the 21st Century have grown up teaching their Parents Right from Wrong and are not afriad of the Big Bad Wolf called the Truth. Yes, our political history over the last 35-40 years is important and Hollywood/Big Business have exploited what they think is basic Human Instints; however, I dare any Democrat and or Republican to tell me that they have captured the true Human Spirit which causes us even today to question Our Elders and Powers-that-Be Societal Thinking just as the Youth of the 60’s did their Elders and Powers-that-Be of the 70’s.

Not to be disrespectful or unthankful, but what Constitutional Right gives the Youth of the 60’s the Unalienable Right to say that it is their way or the highway in the manner that America as “We the People” conduct ourselve within the Law of the Land? Freedom begins when a person is no longer a Burden of Society and Society is no longer a Burden to them.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at March 27, 2006 10:30 PM
Comment #136265

Dave-

Fred Dawes said:
“what is happening inside this non-nation”

Excuse me, but is calling my country a “non-nation” not anti-US spewage? There is not even the courtesy of clarity (what exactly is a “non-nation”?)here.

This kind of ridiculousness and partisanship (evident on all sides) hamstrings our nation worse than the actual issues we face.

Regardless, my point is that many people take issue with the way Jack is constantly using the term “hysterical” to describe liberals. When someone like Fred Dawes makes such a poorly-scripted and closed-minded (“the red china boys”) post like this, it justifies the application of the term.

Posted by: Beijing Rob at March 28, 2006 1:15 AM
Comment #136288

IMAGINE:
Imagine for a moment how our world would be if the people in each nation throughout history were able to question and protest their leaders decisions? (The Dems need to shut up because we are in control now!)

Imagine Germany with 2 strong parties in the 1930’s, each free to oppose the other and to question the government. (The Dems need to shut up because we are in control now!)

Imagine Russia in the 1920’s with 2 strong parties, each free to oppose the other and to question the government. (The Dems need to shut up because we are in control now!)

Imagine America today, with two strong parties, each free to oppose the other but unwilling to question the government. (The Dems need to shut up because we are in control now!)

We, the people of the United States are more morally obligated to the actions of our leaders than any other nation in history. Therefore, we can never allow ourselves to simply hand over this responsibility to any administration…

“My country, right or wrong” cannot be acceptable when we believe ourselves to be a self-governing people. How moral can we be if we support a wrong? If we do not use our rights and our freedoms to hold our government responsible to moral and legal actions? If the government does wrong, can we later claim we were powerless? Victims of an unresponsive government that denied us our right to participate?

We cannot say we wish to end tyranny where people do not have the freedom to speak their minds or to oppose the government and then say people in America are wrong to speak their beliefs.

Freedom of popular speech really does not require protection. The unpopular speech, however usually does.

Usually our society only expects judges to withold thier personal opinions because we want a fair judge who will be as unbiased as possible. Sometimes in our society we willingly give up some of our rights because of the duty we wish to serve… this can be certain rights for people in the military… teachers in our schools and judges in our courts.

Justice O’Conner was criticized for speaking out, but she waited until she retired.

During the recent confirmation hearings for 2 Supreme Court judges we listened repeatedly to the nominees saying that to voice a particular view on issues would be improper because of this impartiality.

Justice Scalia seems to have no reservations… often times there are questions we wish we could ask but no one ever does.

Justice Salia believes that detainees/alleged terrorists are not entitled to legal status or civil proceedings/protections. He also says that they are not enemy combatants entitled to the protection of the Geneve Convention. They are, I guess not humans entitled to basic Human Rights of treaties signed by America? Legal conventions within our society, such as habeas corpus, are disregarded or deemed not appropriate. So, what do we do?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12017271/site/newsweek/

I understand that these people are accused of terrible things! I use the word accused, because it should be especially noted that people are innocent until proven guilty in light of the questions of Congressional corruption, Congressman DeLay’s problems and the concern over the legality of our NSA wiretapping. Each of these, we must remember (if we forget, the Republican/Conservatives will remind us) are allegations not proven in courty yet.

We hold some things to be universal… universal means that they apply to all… regardless of alleged crimes, nationality, sex or political affiliation… otherwise, they would not be universal. I am not saying that these detainees are entitled to all American protections to which a citizen is entitled… but I am saying that there must be a minimum… those rights we proclaim for ourselves that are given to all men. Again, if not, then they aren’t universal and divinely given… for unless I am mistaken, there were only one chosen people and America wasn’t mentioned.

As mentioned by Beijing Rob… we really need to make sure our own house is in order. Nothing weakens an arugment or a moral stand quite as much as hypocracy.

Some things are repeated so often that they can become the “truth”. A person, whether they stand on the street corner and pass out fliers or get the focus of a camera because of who they are in their profession… they are still individuals with a right to speak.

Hollywood
Ronald Reagan, President (Rep) http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001654/
Fred Grandy, Congressman (Rep) http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0334948/
Sonny Bono, Congressman (Rep) http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0095122/
Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor (Rep) http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000216/
Fred Dalton Thompson, Senator (Rep) http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000669/

Lastly, History Revisionism
I just love my daughter… she sent me this link this morning.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060327/pl_afp/usbritainbushiraqdiplomacy_060327064943

According to this news story, President Bush told PM Blair that he was determined to invade Iraq, with our without UN approval.

I say his approach to the UN was “My way or the highway, doesn’t matter ‘cause we are going regardless…”

Others say that international support was important and vital…

Historians will spend decades find and evaluating the truth… which can then be conveniently denied and spurned if it doesn’t agree with a particular personal or political position.

Posted by: Darren7160 at March 28, 2006 4:07 AM
Comment #136305

Darren

Your “imagine” has it backwards. Republicans very rarely say that the Dems should shut up because they are in control. The Dem much more commonly abdicate responsibility by saying that the Repubicans are in control. I have seen it so often in this very blog that it is getting monotonous.

What I object to among some Dems is the idea that they are coequal. Elections determine who will have the lead. That is very different, however.

Besides, I see no sign that anybody is going to shut up or that they are being silenced.

Re history

That is why I am glad these sources are finally being made available. The more we know about Saddam’s regime and the events just before the war, the better we can judge the U.S. response.

Posted by: Jack at March 28, 2006 9:13 AM
Comment #136354

Henry,

“And while just like the 70’s the Leadership of our Country cater to those over 50, the Youth of the 21st Century have grown up teaching their Parents Right from Wrong and are not afriad of the Big Bad Wolf called the Truth. Yes, our political history over the last 35-40 years is important and Hollywood/Big Business have exploited what they think is basic Human Instints; however, I dare any Democrat and or Republican to tell me that they have captured the true Human Spirit which causes us even today to question Our Elders and Powers-that-Be Societal Thinking just as the Youth of the 60’s did their Elders and Powers-that-Be of the 70’s.

Not to be disrespectful or unthankful, but what Constitutional Right gives the Youth of the 60’s the Unalienable Right to say that it is their way or the highway in the manner that America as “We the People” conduct ourselve within the Law of the Land? Freedom begins when a person is no longer a Burden of Society and Society is no longer a Burden to them.”

That would be the “freedom of expression”, but no where in my post do I intimate that it’s “my way or the highway”.

Just to refresh your memory, this is what I actually wrote;

“I would submit that all this wailing and gnashing of teeth about our political history for the last 35 or 40 years is a waste of time.
Our news media, our entertainment media, and indeed our politicians, are merely a reflection of what we, in this country have become.
Everybody bitches about the sad state of Hollywood, yet the same movies we complain about make hundreds of millions of dollars at the box office. This is a American bastion of true capitalism. Sombody has to be watching these movies or they wouldn’t be made.
By the same token we Americans whine and bitch about the coruption and ineptness in Washington, but we keep electing the same folks year after year.
This is a true reflection of America, and some day we will stop pretending and realize that we are who we are, and unless the mindset of the American people changes drasticly, nothing much is going to change in this country.

Posted by: Rocky at March 27, 2006 10:03 AM

Sorry Henry,
I still stand by what I wrote, and that would be your “freedom of expression” to either agree or disagree.

Posted by: Rocky at March 28, 2006 12:20 PM
Comment #136379

Rocky,
Sorry I should of made it clear that it is some of the Youth of the 60’s. However, even you must admit that if it was not for the stubornness and violence that both sides still want to display even in their langauge that prevents American Politics from debating what is Politically Unalienable Correct in public. Yes, the stubborness is a good thing because it cause all of us to look at the extremes instead of just the middle; however, it is the violence in Language and Actions that the Youth of the 21st Century in America need to control and that is a good way to bring America back together as both “Kids” learn why The Founding Fathers made America a Two Party Politilcal System. As a matter of fact, IMHO that would be a “Good Thing” considering that the Youth of the 60’s owe the Children’s Children a chunk of change.

Today, the people who are under 50 have no excuse for not understanding the difference between what you believ and that what you can prove to be right by The Law of the Land. Especially since the actions of the 70’s have produced a Society of Consumers instead a Society of Corporations. Now, we get to have fun seeing if this era of Forefathers can match the wits of our other Forefathers in their master of the Law as the Left and Right wake up to the Facts of Life

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at March 28, 2006 2:00 PM
Comment #136424

Jack,
I am sorry, but I don’t see how Cheney’s secret energy policy development, the Republican’s private closed door gift of $22 billion to the HMOs and the contintual dragging of feet to investigate allegations against this administration show an overwhelming willingness to cooperate with the Democrats.

This blog is a bit more mature than some of the others ones, which is why I stay here. There are a lot of childish people out there that do tell the Democrats to shut up… that the Republicans are in control.

I will concede to your definition of the responsibilities and the rightness of being the ones chosen by the people to determine the course of this country.

However, please make sure that in the time ahead that this will continue to the the case… so as things go through their natural progression and the Republican party declines for the the Democrats to once again be the majority… make sure that it isn’t the Democrats you blame…. Blame the Republican minority that “abdicate responsibility by saying that the Democrats are in control.

I know that people don’t like polls. Oops. I mean Republicans and Conservatives don’t like polls. Especailly ones they don’t like the results of…

But, many might agree that the last election was primarily focused on national defense and “integrity”… the results of that election can hardly be considered a “mandate”.

Remember that word? It was rammed down our throat for the 4 years of President Clinton’s second term. President Clinton did not have a mandate… his election victory wasn’t large enough to be considered a mandate… It was Rush’s favorite word and it was repeated through out the Sunday morning shows and in article after article.

President Bush lost the popular vote but won the electoral. Not exactly a mandate.

It isn’t a winner takes all the marbles, and when they do take all the marbles, please don’t blame the ones that had them taken from.

We can’t even get the Republicans to issues subpoenas or to make witnesses appearing before congressional committes to swear in.

Excuse me, but if the Democrats tried to allow testamony without an oath, I really do believe that the Repubicans would (rightly) be having a fit.

There were many issues that I raised and it pleases me that we came so close in agreement.

Posted by: Darren7160 at March 28, 2006 4:08 PM
Comment #136437

Jack,

There is something that is absolutely not sinking in with you and I don’t know how to get you to see it any more clearly. I feel like a broken record here. But here is yet another attempt:

You said:

“That is why I am glad these sources are finally being made available. The more we know about Saddam’s regime and the events just before the war, the better we can judge the U.S. response.”

Jack, the degree of evil of sadaam is IRRELEVENT!!! The ends do NOT justify the means and this war is ILLEGAL. As a result of doing things the WRONG way, we are acting the way we look to the terorists and making their case for them. We are behaving like an EMPIRE. We are MAKING enemies that we not have made if we had only kept the moral high ground the world esteemed us with possessing after 9/11.

We can ALL AGREE that sadaam is and was evil. But, if you fight evil with evil, you are doing no good at all. That is the problem here. It really doesn’t get any simpler. I don’t understand why you persist in trying to make the argument of how evil things were in Iraq under sadaam. We all know, we all concede. BUT IT’S IRRELEVANT!

Is it a good thing that sadaam is gone? I hope so and I beleive so, but it is NOT a good thing that Iraq is now subsiding into a civil war either now is it?

The ONLY legal precept for the war was the ‘clear and present danger’ to the US of WMDs. The fact that they were not there means their was no legal justification under American law for the war. The fact that the UN remained seized of the issue under article 1441 meant that unilateral action was also a violation of International law as well (And another violation of American law since we signed and ratified our treaty of membership in the UN).

Talking about how bad things were under sadaam is nothing more than a distraction qand a smokescreen. This is also especially irrelevant when you consider that Iraq is actually WORSE off at the moment than it was under sadaam. There is hope, true, but there is also the very real looming horror of a growing civil war. It is hard to say we are making things better yet. I hope we can pull it off, but we are a long way from it yet. I don’t think we can do it alone. I think the UN would give a better moral stance and greater legitimacy to the Iraqi government. So far, Bush and company are excluding the UN from ANY role whatsoever. That is clearly a mistake and time will illustrate this point more and more every day.

RGF

Posted by: RGF at March 28, 2006 5:10 PM
Comment #136445

May I submit that in Iraq they have a constitution document that took a couple of years to put together. Look at Europe they are still hagling over the Euro constitution which they have been working on far more time than the Iraqi’s. That is only one item of progress.

Posted by: tomh at March 28, 2006 5:30 PM
Comment #136446

tomh,

“May I submit that in Iraq they have a constitution document that took a couple of years to put together.”

I guess the point would be whether they will use it or not.

Posted by: Rocky at March 28, 2006 5:32 PM
Comment #136457

Rocky
My point was that if Iraq could do it in a couple of years why does it take the Euros so long?

Posted by: tomh at March 28, 2006 6:10 PM
Comment #136459

tomh,

“My point was that if Iraq could do it in a couple of years why does it take the Euros so long?

The Iraqis had us looking over their shoulder and pushing.

How many different countries and cultures make up the EU?

I would think that the differences are pretty obvious.

Posted by: Rocky at March 28, 2006 6:21 PM
Comment #136460

tomh,

The Euros are several nations arriving at place of mutual agreement from the point of haveing lived very set laws and governments for a long time.

Iraq is having democracy and a constituion imposed from an outside source that wants to decide how they should live for them.

Iraq arrived at a constituion much quicker, but we shall which road leads to greater success, won’t we?

You can guess by my tone which way I believe will ultimately be more stable and successful, but time and cost will be the ultimate judges.

RGF

Posted by: RGF at March 28, 2006 6:27 PM
Comment #136523

Darren,
Well said!!!!!

Posted by: Linda H. at March 28, 2006 11:14 PM
Comment #136564

Bill M.,
Please fogive me, I do not want to take your comments and distort them in any way… however, a couple of sentences really stood out and I wanted to bring them out for discussion.

“He’d been thumbing his nose at the world long enough.”

I hear so many times from Conservatives and Republicans that we cannot foresake our national sovereignty and our national security to the will of the international community.

There were many countries that opposed the justification leading up to the war… many had their arm twisted and were manipulated to the point where they did actually do America’s bidding.

Slowly, information is coming out that President Bush may have been fully aware (See memo from PM Blair’s office) that there were no WMDs… I believe this was even before Sec. of State Powell ruined his reputation before the world by surrendering what he believed, to what he was told.

There are entire web site, books and organizations (such as the John Birch Soceity, to which shares this wonderful city with me) dedicated to the belief that we should not surrender our rights as a nation.

Even when we sign treaties… we somehow believe that others are responsible for complying with them… but we do not want to be held to them… we find numerous ways to weasel out of them (Genevea Convention being the foremost in my mind at this moment).

We want others to be tried for War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity, but we refuse to ratify treaties which might someday leave us open to having our officals defending their actions in a world court.

Why? Because we cannot allow ourselves to be influenced by international condemnation or opinion.

We are told that regardless of world opinion, we have a right and a responsibility to do what is right for us.

What I wonder, is how we can then justify Sadam thumbing his nose, at us and the world, as being justification for invasion.

Does this include someone like Venezuela President Hugo Chavez? I do not believe that he is trying to aquire WMD (But that can always be argued and repeated enough to be “true”… how would he prove a negative?). His rhetoric towards the US is irrational and diheartening, but I do not believe it is a “clear and present danger” as Pat Robertson would have us believe.

“The different factions of Islam have been killing each other off for centuries and they’ve given no indication that they are willing to set aside the hatred they hold for each other and help build a democratic Iraq.”

Here I just want to point out to all those that believe that it is only the Muslims that are irrational… a study of the former Yugoslovia is an interesting micrososim of religous and ethnic hatred. Remember, it was a Serbian that started WWI because of Serbian nationalism…

There are Orthodox and Roman Catholics along with Muslims, differnt ethnic populations… all toseed in. A quick review of Croatian cooperation with the Nazis and their willingness to take advantage of their new found power is… well, interesting.

I guess my point here is that we wish to demonize people and religions and nations that oppose us. We even like to do it to political opponents here in America… We want to believe that each situation is completely unique when it really isn’t… that a particular religion is the cause of evil, when it is evil men abusing a religion for their own aims.

There really is not much that is new under the sun…

Linda,
Thank you very much.

Posted by: Darren7160 at March 29, 2006 6:48 AM
Comment #136936

Speaking of Iraq!

Posted by: mental wimp at March 30, 2006 5:14 PM
Comment #137054

Mental wimp,
Sigh… I looked at the link and it is pretty clear. Thanks.

Unfortunately, no amount of evidence or even a “smoking gun” will cause some people to admit the truth. Denial, denial, denial.

Whether it be a journalist, a general, a former administration offical or from a foreign government… they all have an “agenda” against President Bush…

Thus, even if they are correct (which they will not concede) then their motives for telling the truth is questioned, as if their motive somehow changes the truth.

Posted by: Darren7160 at March 31, 2006 7:32 AM
Comment #184565

President Bush and his father are members of the “Secret Society” known for satan worship. He fooled all the “right” (wrong) wingers, Republicans and Christians into putting one of the most evil men of our time into office. The bible says that there are many anti-christs, Bush and his father are 2 of them. This illegal, immoral and unjust war in Iraq will eventually lead to the battle of Armegeddan prophesied in the bible. Says your prayers people, all hell is about to break loose on this planet. Repent, ask Jesus into your heart and keep the faith

Posted by: John at September 27, 2006 8:08 PM
Post a comment