| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"J Young" |
| Date: |
03 Oct 2005 12:30:43 PM |
| Object: |
Ted Kennedy should be in prison |
July 1969, a young woman named Mary Jo Kopechne was a passenger in a
vehicle driven by Sen. Edward Kennedy on Chappaquiddick Island. She
died as a direct result of Sen. Kennedy's actions. Had this case been
properly investigated and prosecuted, Ted Kennedy would have been there
to greet Michael Skakel when he arrived to begin his prison sentence
for murdering a young girl. It's now 2005; when will this case be
re-opened and let justice be served?
http://www.ytedk.com/intro.htm
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: George W. Bush should be in prison |
06 Oct 2005 01:40:50 AM |
|
|
On 5-Oct-2005, The Secretary of HomInt3rn <ý|<®åñ539ô9@\/\/0é|\/|.6®0>
wrote:
I was busily flonking away in alt.politics.homosexuality, when The Goddess
Eris Herself suddenly made me reply to øéòéï áøúåïý/Riain Barton:
However, the technical glitch is that no treaty had been signed
therefore the war had not been concluded, but there was merely a
ceasefire. Since Saddam kept violating the terms of the ceasefire and
never negotiated a treaty, the United States and other nations had the
right to invade and enforce the ceasefire and/or conclude the war that
began in 1991.
'dem are da facts for better or for worse...
Oh my fucking Goddess, I never knew you were such a right-wing k00k.
And he's wrong....where?
By
"violating the terms of the ceasefire", I presume you refer to WMDs, of
the
sort he hasn't had since 1991 or so?
No, he refused to allow UN inspectors in to do their jobs.
He jerked them around for 10 YEARS.
I realize quite well that he may have wanted to keep the illusion that he
had WMDs to keep his other enemies in fear if him - or maybe just
make himself look good to the Irqis - but that's just too bad for him.
Susan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: George W. Bush should be in prison |
06 Oct 2005 05:06:19 PM |
|
|
<flaviaR@verizon.net> wrote:
The Secretary of HomInt3rn <ý|<®åñ539ô9@\/\/0é|\/|.6®0>
However, the technical glitch is that no treaty had been signed
therefore the war had not been concluded, but there was merely a
ceasefire. Since Saddam kept violating the terms of the ceasefire and
never negotiated a treaty, the United States and other nations had the
right to invade and enforce the ceasefire and/or conclude the war that
began in 1991.
'dem are da facts for better or for worse...
Oh my fucking Goddess, I never knew you were such a right-wing k00k.
And he's wrong....where?
There was no right to invade and no justification for any invasion.
Iraq was no occupying Kuwait and the UN did not authorize any invasion
or additional invasion of Iraq.
And that you kooks try so desperately to justify the slaughter of tens
of thousands of innocent people is truly disgusting.
By
"violating the terms of the ceasefire", I presume you refer to WMDs, of
the
sort he hasn't had since 1991 or so?
No, he refused to allow UN inspectors in to do their jobs.
That's a lie. UN inspectors were in Iraq and doing their job in 2003
when Bush forced them to leave.
But you bloodthirsty lunatics will use any lie to justify killing
people.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mimi Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: George W. Bush should be in prison |
06 Oct 2005 05:32:39 PM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
<flaviaR@verizon.net> wrote:
The Secretary of HomInt3rn <ý|<®åñ539ô9@\/\/0é|\/|.6®0>
However, the technical glitch is that no treaty had been signed
therefore the war had not been concluded, but there was merely a
ceasefire. Since Saddam kept violating the terms of the ceasefire and
never negotiated a treaty, the United States and other nations had the
right to invade and enforce the ceasefire and/or conclude the war that
began in 1991.
'dem are da facts for better or for worse...
Oh my fucking Goddess, I never knew you were such a right-wing k00k.
And he's wrong....where?
There was no right to invade and no justification for any invasion.
Iraq was no occupying Kuwait and the UN did not authorize any invasion
or additional invasion of Iraq.
And that you kooks try so desperately to justify the slaughter of tens
of thousands of innocent people is truly disgusting.
I agree that it was wrong to invade Iraq, but for different reasons. I'm
sorry about the loss of life in Iraq, but the reasons we shouldn't have
invaded (to my mind) are (1) it's none of our business and (2) our
soldiers, if they have to die, should do it protecting us, here on our
shores, they should not be sent to die in foreign countries that are no
threat to us (Americans) and yes, before you ask, the same was true for
Vietnam.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: George W. Bush should be in prison |
06 Oct 2005 07:22:17 PM |
|
|
On 6-Oct-2005, Mimi Cohen <imnot@cox.net> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<flaviaR@verizon.net> wrote:
The Secretary of HomInt3rn <ý|<®åñ539ô9@\/\/0é|\/|.6®0>
However, the technical glitch is that no treaty had been signed
therefore the war had not been concluded, but there was merely a
ceasefire. Since Saddam kept violating the terms of the ceasefire and
never negotiated a treaty, the United States and other nations had the
right to invade and enforce the ceasefire and/or conclude the war that
began in 1991.
'dem are da facts for better or for worse...
Oh my fucking Goddess, I never knew you were such a right-wing k00k.
And he's wrong....where?
There was no right to invade and no justification for any invasion.
Translation: he's going to use rhetoric when faced with facts he dislikes.
Iraq was no occupying Kuwait and the UN did not authorize any invasion
or additional invasion of Iraq.
See above.
And that you kooks
Oh, look- the kook has caled me a kook!
try so desperately to justify the slaughter of tens
of thousands of innocent people is truly disgusting.
The way these kooks try to desperately pin this on us as slaughter
by our hands is what's sick.
I agree that it was wrong to invade Iraq, but for different reasons. I'm
sorry about the loss of life in Iraq, but the reasons we shouldn't have
invaded (to my mind) are (1) it's none of our business
It was our business.
He had signed the surrender treaty with us & was jerking us around.
and (2) our
soldiers, if they have to die, should do it protecting us, here on our
shores, they should not be sent to die in foreign countries that are no
threat to us (Americans) and yes, before you ask, the same was true for
Vietnam.
It depends on how you define "threat."
He was a long-term threat; he certainly wanted to be & was determined
to be. But, in the short-term, Israel had already taken care of that for us.
Susan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mimi Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: George W. Bush should be in prison |
06 Oct 2005 08:10:32 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On 6-Oct-2005, Mimi Cohen <imnot@cox.net> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
< > wrote:
The Secretary of HomInt3rn <ý|<®åñ539ô9@\/\/0é|\/|.6®0>
However, the technical glitch is that no treaty had been signed
therefore the war had not been concluded, but there was merely a
ceasefire. Since Saddam kept violating the terms of the ceasefire and
never negotiated a treaty, the United States and other nations had the
right to invade and enforce the ceasefire and/or conclude the war that
began in 1991.
'dem are da facts for better or for worse...
Oh my fucking Goddess, I never knew you were such a right-wing k00k.
And he's wrong....where?
There was no right to invade and no justification for any invasion.
Translation: he's going to use rhetoric when faced with facts he dislikes.
Iraq was no occupying Kuwait and the UN did not authorize any invasion
or additional invasion of Iraq.
See above.
And that you kooks
Oh, look- the kook has caled me a kook!
try so desperately to justify the slaughter of tens
of thousands of innocent people is truly disgusting.
The way these kooks try to desperately pin this on us as slaughter
by our hands is what's sick.
I agree that it was wrong to invade Iraq, but for different reasons. I'm
sorry about the loss of life in Iraq, but the reasons we shouldn't have
invaded (to my mind) are (1) it's none of our business
It was our business.
Wow, we've found something to disagree on :)
He had signed the surrender treaty with us & was jerking us around.
Considering that he was not a threat to Americans on American soil
jerking us around wasn't justification for invading, besides that isn't
why W was so dead set on attacking. It was about cleaning up after his
daddy and then there's all that lovely Iraqi oil.
and (2) our
soldiers, if they have to die, should do it protecting us, here on our
shores, they should not be sent to die in foreign countries that are no
threat to us (Americans) and yes, before you ask, the same was true for
Vietnam.
It depends on how you define "threat."
He was a long-term threat; he certainly wanted to be & was determined
to be. But, in the short-term, Israel had already taken care of that for us.
Susan
It has now been determined that there was no "there" there as to WMD
in Iraq. I define threat as Americans dying in the streets of the towns
and cities they live in. Being bombed by Japan at Pearl Harbor was a
threat followed by action. (Japan did tell us about an hour before the
bombing, there were just too many snafus between their telling and our
hearing to avoid the bombing and loss of American lives.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: George W. Bush should be in prison |
06 Oct 2005 10:14:36 PM |
|
|
On 6-Oct-2005, Mimi Cohen <imnot@cox.net> wrote:
flaviaR@verizon.net wrote:
On 6-Oct-2005, Mimi Cohen <imnot@cox.net> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<flaviaR@verizon.net> wrote:
The Secretary of HomInt3rn <ý|<®åñ539ô9@\/\/0é|\/|.6®0>
However, the technical glitch is that no treaty had been signed
therefore the war had not been concluded, but there was merely a
ceasefire. Since Saddam kept violating the terms of the ceasefire
and
never negotiated a treaty, the United States and other nations had
the
right to invade and enforce the ceasefire and/or conclude the war
that
began in 1991.
'dem are da facts for better or for worse...
Oh my fucking Goddess, I never knew you were such a right-wing k00k.
And he's wrong....where?
There was no right to invade and no justification for any invasion.
Translation: he's going to use rhetoric when faced with facts he
dislikes.
Iraq was no occupying Kuwait and the UN did not authorize any invasion
or additional invasion of Iraq.
See above.
And that you kooks
Oh, look- the kook has caled me a kook!
try so desperately to justify the slaughter of tens
of thousands of innocent people is truly disgusting.
The way these kooks try to desperately pin this on us as slaughter
by our hands is what's sick.
I agree that it was wrong to invade Iraq, but for different reasons. I'm
sorry about the loss of life in Iraq, but the reasons we shouldn't have
invaded (to my mind) are (1) it's none of our business
It was our business.
Wow, we've found something to disagree on :)
He had signed the surrender treaty with us & was jerking us around.
Considering that he was not a threat to Americans on American soil
jerking us around wasn't justification for invading,
You keep saying this as tho' it were relevent to the discussion.
The fact is that he looked very much like a threat in general &,
like I said, he violated his surrender treaty.
besides that isn't
why W was so dead set on attacking. It was about cleaning up after his
daddy and then there's all that lovely Iraqi oil.
Oh, of course.
I never denied that the whole thing wasn't really to hide the fact that *his
Saudi buddies* are the ones behind terrorism - it was W's whole smoke
& mirrors distraction. BUT, the war/.invasion/whatever you want to call it
was not illegal, & it was not just W's suck-ups who were saying that S.H.
needed to be taken care of.
Me, personally, I think we should have gotten rid of him a long time ago
& apologized to the Iraquis for keeping him in power as long as we did.
and (2) our
soldiers, if they have to die, should do it protecting us, here on our
shores, they should not be sent to die in foreign countries that are no
threat to us (Americans) and yes, before you ask, the same was true for
Vietnam.
It depends on how you define "threat."
He was a long-term threat; he certainly wanted to be & was determined
to be. But, in the short-term, Israel had already taken care of that for
us.
It has now been determined that there was no "there" there as to WMD
in Iraq.
Yeah, NOW.
But the reasoning - not just by W suck-ups - was that he *had* had them,
was constantly trying to get them (the French were selling stuff to him -
*that's* why htey kept condeming our actions!) *&* he had violated the
surrender terms - all of which pointed to him having them.
One of the reasons Wis insisting we *stay* in Iraq is to "set up democracy".
Well, yeah - he wants to install a friendly government
But the truth is that he made no real exit plan; he's very selfishly
short-sighted.
I define threat as Americans dying in the streets of the towns
and cities they live in.
I would hate to wait until a threat got to that extent.
Being bombed by Japan at Pearl Harbor was a
threat followed by action. (Japan did tell us about an hour before the
bombing, there were just too many snafus between their telling and our
hearing to avoid the bombing and loss of American lives.
That I hadn't heard.
Susan
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mimi Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: George W. Bush should be in prison |
06 Oct 2005 09:32:44 AM |
|
|
wrote:
On 5-Oct-2005, The Secretary of HomInt3rn <ý|<®åñ539ô9@\/\/0é|\/|.6®0>
wrote:
I was busily flonking away in alt.politics.homosexuality, when The Goddess
Eris Herself suddenly made me reply to øéòéï áøúåïý/Riain Barton:
However, the technical glitch is that no treaty had been signed
therefore the war had not been concluded, but there was merely a
ceasefire. Since Saddam kept violating the terms of the ceasefire and
never negotiated a treaty, the United States and other nations had the
right to invade and enforce the ceasefire and/or conclude the war that
began in 1991.
'dem are da facts for better or for worse...
Oh my fucking Goddess, I never knew you were such a right-wing k00k.
And he's wrong....where?
By
"violating the terms of the ceasefire", I presume you refer to WMDs, of
the
sort he hasn't had since 1991 or so?
No, he refused to allow UN inspectors in to do their jobs.
He jerked them around for 10 YEARS.
I realize quite well that he may have wanted to keep the illusion that he
had WMDs to keep his other enemies in fear if him - or maybe just
make himself look good to the Irqis - but that's just too bad for him.
Susan
Funny thing about Sadaam, he DID support terrorism, just not against
America or Americans. He was paying surviving members of the families of
murder bombing palesimians $25,000. He was a threat to Israel, not the US.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: George W. Bush should be in prison |
06 Oct 2005 07:19:40 PM |
|
|
On 6-Oct-2005, Mimi Cohen <imnot@cox.net> wrote:
Funny thing about Sadaam, he DID support terrorism, just not against
America or Americans. He was paying surviving members of the families of
murder bombing palesimians $25,000. He was a threat to Israel, not the US.
The terrorists have killed over 2 dozen Americans in Israel.
And theyare pretty much all interconnected.
But he was not a threat to Israel - Israel took care of him in
such a way that America could not manage: one word: "Osirak."
Susan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mimi Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: George W. Bush should be in prison |
06 Oct 2005 08:02:55 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On 6-Oct-2005, Mimi Cohen <imnot@cox.net> wrote:
Funny thing about Sadaam, he DID support terrorism, just not against
America or Americans. He was paying surviving members of the families of
murder bombing palesimians $25,000. He was a threat to Israel, not the US.
The terrorists have killed over 2 dozen Americans in Israel.
And theyare pretty much all interconnected.
But he was not a threat to Israel - Israel took care of him in
such a way that America could not manage: one word: "Osirak."
Susan
I can think of another word, but it would have been illegal for us to go
that route "mosaad" :)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Secretary of HomInt3rn" |
|
| Title: Re: George W. Bush should be in prison |
06 Oct 2005 06:05:42 PM |
|
|
I was busily flonking away in alt.politics.homosexuality, when The Goddess
Eris Herself suddenly made me reply to flaviaR@verizon.net:
On 5-Oct-2005, The Secretary of HomInt3rn wrote:
I was busily flonking away in alt.politics.homosexuality, when The
Goddess Eris Herself suddenly made me reply to øéòéï áøúåïý/Riain Barton:
However, the technical glitch is that no treaty had been signed
therefore the war had not been concluded, but there was merely a
ceasefire. Since Saddam kept violating the terms of the ceasefire and
never negotiated a treaty, the United States and other nations had the
right to invade and enforce the ceasefire and/or conclude the war that
began in 1991.
'dem are da facts for better or for worse...
Oh my fucking Goddess, I never knew you were such a right-wing k00k.
And he's wrong....where?
Well, the fact that he turned out to be a paper tiger should be one big
hint. I think Americans would be wise to learn how to just STFU about
Saddam Hussein, since they only look like paranoid psychos when they talk
about him in the sense of justifying the invasion of Iraq.
By
"violating the terms of the ceasefire", I presume you refer to WMDs, of
the
sort he hasn't had since 1991 or so?
No, he refused to allow UN inspectors in to do their jobs.
He jerked them around for 10 YEARS.
I realize quite well that he may have wanted to keep the illusion that he
had WMDs to keep his other enemies in fear if him - or maybe just
make himself look good to the Irqis - but that's just too bad for him.
And if America has to be invaded and/or destroyed to protect the rest of the
world, that'll be just too bad for America.
--
___________________________________________________________________________
Hail Eris! "The personal _is_ political."
Bent Depraved N. Deviant *****-Smoker, Esq., Superfaggot
"Stupidity excuses nothing. It's only a reason...." -- Phxbrd
Economic Left/Right: -7.63 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.38
"The whining has just begun." -- John Wentzky
Killfiled by: directory; Anim8rfsk
"It's not nice to misrepresent Mother Nature."
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: George W. Bush should be in prison |
06 Oct 2005 07:26:16 PM |
|
|
On 6-Oct-2005, The Secretary of HomInt3rn <ý|<®åñ539ô9@\/\/0é|\/|.6®0>
wrote:
I was busily flonking away in alt.politics.homosexuality, when The Goddess
Eris Herself suddenly made me reply to flaviaR@verizon.net:
On 5-Oct-2005, The Secretary of HomInt3rn wrote:
I was busily flonking away in alt.politics.homosexuality, when The
Goddess Eris Herself suddenly made me reply to øéòéï áøúåïý/Riain
Barton:
However, the technical glitch is that no treaty had been signed
therefore the war had not been concluded, but there was merely a
ceasefire. Since Saddam kept violating the terms of the ceasefire and
never negotiated a treaty, the United States and other nations had
the
right to invade and enforce the ceasefire and/or conclude the war
that
began in 1991.
'dem are da facts for better or for worse...
Oh my fucking Goddess, I never knew you were such a right-wing k00k.
And he's wrong....where?
Well, the fact that he turned out to be a paper tiger should be one big
hint.
So, because he managed to fool people - the way he *wanted* to - we are
allowed to condemn an action *in retrospect"??
I think Americans would be wise to learn how to just STFU about
Saddam Hussein, since they only look like paranoid psychos when they talk
about him in the sense of justifying the invasion of Iraq.
You are unfairly judging the whole thing from the viewpoint of 20/20
hindsight.
*Because* he was breaking the terms of the surrender he signed, he made
*everyone (not just Bush & his sock-puppet cronies)* think that he really
did
have WMDs. In a way, he was begging to be re-attacked.
By
"violating the terms of the ceasefire", I presume you refer to WMDs, of
the
sort he hasn't had since 1991 or so?
No, he refused to allow UN inspectors in to do their jobs.
He jerked them around for 10 YEARS.
I realize quite well that he may have wanted to keep the illusion that
he
had WMDs to keep his other enemies in fear if him - or maybe just
make himself look good to the Irqis - but that's just too bad for him.
And if America has to be invaded and/or destroyed to protect the rest of
the > world, that'll be just too bad for America.
IOW, you can't debate on the points raised.
As I said before & will go on saying until someone either proves me wrong
or admits to ignoring the facts:
This is about someone who signed a surrender treaty, refused to live by
the agreement he signed, & deliberately made it look as tho' he was a
bigger threat than he was. America has never done any of these things.
Susan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mimi Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: George W. Bush should be in prison |
06 Oct 2005 08:13:33 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On 6-Oct-2005, The Secretary of HomInt3rn <ý|<®åñ539ô9@\/\/0é|\/|.6®0>
wrote:
I was busily flonking away in alt.politics.homosexuality, when The Goddess
Eris Herself suddenly made me reply to :
On 5-Oct-2005, The Secretary of HomInt3rn wrote:
I was busily flonking away in alt.politics.homosexuality, when The
Goddess Eris Herself suddenly made me reply to øéòéï áøúåïý/Riain
Barton:
However, the technical glitch is that no treaty had been signed
therefore the war had not been concluded, but there was merely a
ceasefire. Since Saddam kept violating the terms of the ceasefire and
never negotiated a treaty, the United States and other nations had
the
right to invade and enforce the ceasefire and/or conclude the war
that
began in 1991.
'dem are da facts for better or for worse...
Oh my fucking Goddess, I never knew you were such a right-wing k00k.
And he's wrong....where?
Well, the fact that he turned out to be a paper tiger should be one big
hint.
So, because he managed to fool people - the way he *wanted* to - we are
allowed to condemn an action *in retrospect"??
I think Americans would be wise to learn how to just STFU about
Saddam Hussein, since they only look like paranoid psychos when they talk
about him in the sense of justifying the invasion of Iraq.
You are unfairly judging the whole thing from the viewpoint of 20/20
hindsight.
*Because* he was breaking the terms of the surrender he signed, he made
*everyone (not just Bush & his sock-puppet cronies)* think that he really
did
have WMDs. In a way, he was begging to be re-attacked.
But, Susan, that's not true. The Downing Street memos prove undeniably
that W and Blair KNEW there were no WMDs in Iraq, but he went ahead and
attacked anyway. He lied, our soldiers and Iraqi civilians have died
because he lied.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: George W. Bush should be in prison |
06 Oct 2005 10:17:10 PM |
|
|
On 6-Oct-2005, Mimi Cohen <imnot@cox.net> wrote:
You are unfairly judging the whole thing from the viewpoint of 20/20
hindsight.
*Because* he was breaking the terms of the surrender he signed, he made
*everyone (not just Bush & his sock-puppet cronies)* think that he
really
did
have WMDs. In a way, he was begging to be re-attacked.
But, Susan, that's not true. The Downing Street memos prove undeniably
that W and Blair KNEW there were no WMDs in Iraq, but he went ahead and
attacked anyway. He lied, our soldiers and Iraqi civilians have died
because he lied.
What I'm saying is that S.H, fooled a lot of people.
What I have also said in other times./places (but not yet here) is that
we put SH in power, so we were obligated to get him out. And yes,
that *does* mean Americans had to die - but how many Iraqis died
because of our politics in putting SH in power?
Yes, I know he lied.
& I know his moticves are *far* from the purest.
But the re-attack on Iraq is neither illegal nor immoral.
It just so happens that it serves W's evil purposes *anyway*.
I can live with that, even if I'm not ecstatic about it.
Susan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: George W. Bush should be in prison |
07 Oct 2005 12:36:15 AM |
|
|
<flaviaR@verizon.net> wrote:
On 6-Oct-2005, Mimi Cohen <imnot@cox.net> wrote:
You are unfairly judging the whole thing from the viewpoint of 20/20
hindsight.
*Because* he was breaking the terms of the surrender he signed, he made
*everyone (not just Bush & his sock-puppet cronies)* think that he
really
did
have WMDs. In a way, he was begging to be re-attacked.
But, Susan, that's not true. The Downing Street memos prove undeniably
that W and Blair KNEW there were no WMDs in Iraq, but he went ahead and
attacked anyway. He lied, our soldiers and Iraqi civilians have died
because he lied.
What I'm saying is that S.H, fooled a lot of people.
What I have also said in other times./places (but not yet here) is that
we put SH in power, so we were obligated to get him out.
There's the "logoc" of the murdeorus fascist - killing people by the
tens of thousands is justified because he thinks he gets to make the
rules.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mimi Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: George W. Bush should be in prison |
07 Oct 2005 10:01:36 AM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
<flaviaR@verizon.net> wrote:
On 6-Oct-2005, Mimi Cohen <imnot@cox.net> wrote:
You are unfairly judging the whole thing from the viewpoint of 20/20
hindsight.
*Because* he was breaking the terms of the surrender he signed, he made
*everyone (not just Bush & his sock-puppet cronies)* think that he
really
did
have WMDs. In a way, he was begging to be re-attacked.
But, Susan, that's not true. The Downing Street memos prove undeniably
that W and Blair KNEW there were no WMDs in Iraq, but he went ahead and
attacked anyway. He lied, our soldiers and Iraqi civilians have died
because he lied.
What I'm saying is that S.H, fooled a lot of people.
What I have also said in other times./places (but not yet here) is that
we put SH in power, so we were obligated to get him out.
There's the "logoc" of the murdeorus fascist - killing people by the
tens of thousands is justified because he thinks he gets to make the
rules.
Just to be clear, who is the "he" you refer to twice in the above sentence?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mimi Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: George W. Bush should be in prison |
06 Oct 2005 10:31:27 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On 6-Oct-2005, Mimi Cohen <imnot@cox.net> wrote:
You are unfairly judging the whole thing from the viewpoint of 20/20
hindsight.
*Because* he was breaking the terms of the surrender he signed, he made
*everyone (not just Bush & his sock-puppet cronies)* think that he
really
did
have WMDs. In a way, he was begging to be re-attacked.
But, Susan, that's not true. The Downing Street memos prove undeniably
that W and Blair KNEW there were no WMDs in Iraq, but he went ahead and
attacked anyway. He lied, our soldiers and Iraqi civilians have died
because he lied.
What I'm saying is that S.H, fooled a lot of people.
What I have also said in other times./places (but not yet here) is that
we put SH in power, so we were obligated to get him out. And yes,
that *does* mean Americans had to die - but how many Iraqis died
because of our politics in putting SH in power?
Yes, I know he lied.
& I know his moticves are *far* from the purest.
But the re-attack on Iraq is neither illegal nor immoral.
It just so happens that it serves W's evil purposes *anyway*.
I can live with that, even if I'm not ecstatic about it.
Susan
Ok now I understand your position. I still think we need to get the hell
out of there, like yesterday. I'm consistent by the way, I opposed
Vietnam for the same reasons I oppose Iraq. I support our troops and
that's part of the reason we need to get out of there now.
.
|
|
|
| User: "øéòéï áøúåïý/Riain Barton" |
|
| Title: Re: George W. Bush should be in prison |
06 Oct 2005 11:50:36 PM |
|
|
Not before dividing Iraq into three states and bring in the U.N. to
ensure those new states are not invaded by each other or any neighbours.
It is a sad and pathetic situation that we have allowed the Kurds to go
stateless.
"Mimi Cohen" <imnot@cox.net> wrote in message
news:k_l1f.2801$gj1.2679@fed1read05...
: wrote:
:
: Ok now I understand your position. I still think we need to get the
hell
: out of there, like yesterday. I'm consistent by the way, I opposed
: Vietnam for the same reasons I oppose Iraq. I support our troops and
: that's part of the reason we need to get out of there now.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mimi Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: George W. Bush should be in prison |
07 Oct 2005 09:59:56 AM |
|
|
øéòéï áøúåïý/Riain Barton wrote:
Not before dividing Iraq into three states and bring in the U.N. to
ensure those new states are not invaded by each other or any neighbours.
It is a sad and pathetic situation that we have allowed the Kurds to go
stateless.
If by "we" you mean humanity ok, but if by "we" you mean the US; "WE"
are not and should not be the planets police, THAT job belongs to the
UN. It's a matter of jurisdiction, Iraq is the UN's jurisdiction, not ours.
"Mimi Cohen" <imnot@cox.net> wrote in message
news:k_l1f.2801$gj1.2679@fed1read05...
: wrote:
:
: Ok now I understand your position. I still think we need to get the
hell
: out of there, like yesterday. I'm consistent by the way, I opposed
: Vietnam for the same reasons I oppose Iraq. I support our troops and
: that's part of the reason we need to get out of there now.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: George W. Bush should be in prison |
07 Oct 2005 12:15:17 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 07:59:56 -0700, Mimi Cohen <imnot@cox.net> wrote:
øéòéï áøúåïý/Riain Barton wrote:
Not before dividing Iraq into three states and bring in the U.N. to
ensure those new states are not invaded by each other or any neighbours.
It is a sad and pathetic situation that we have allowed the Kurds to go
stateless.
If by "we" you mean humanity ok, but if by "we" you mean the US; "WE"
are not and should not be the planets police, THAT job belongs to the
UN. It's a matter of jurisdiction, Iraq is the UN's jurisdiction, not ours.
It was sadder still when Kissinger and Nixon encouraged them to get
slaughtered and then abandoned them. "Diplomacy is not charity work".
Look it up.
----------------
"Should any political party attempt to abolish
social security, unemployment insurance, and
eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would
not hear of that party again in our political
history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course,
that believes you can do these things. Among them
are [a] few other Texas oil millionaires, and an
occasional politician or business man from other
areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
- President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 11/8/54
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mimi Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: George W. Bush should be in prison |
07 Oct 2005 02:33:09 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 07:59:56 -0700, Mimi Cohen <imnot@cox.net> wrote:
øéòéï áøúåïý/Riain Barton wrote:
Not before dividing Iraq into three states and bring in the U.N. to
ensure those new states are not invaded by each other or any neighbours.
It is a sad and pathetic situation that we have allowed the Kurds to go
stateless.
If by "we" you mean humanity ok, but if by "we" you mean the US; "WE"
are not and should not be the planets police, THAT job belongs to the
UN. It's a matter of jurisdiction, Iraq is the UN's jurisdiction, not ours.
It was sadder still when Kissinger and Nixon encouraged them to get
slaughtered and then abandoned them. "Diplomacy is not charity work".
Look it up.
If you're looking to me for a defense of Nixon and Kissinger boy did you
knock on the wrong door. If there were such a place as xian hell there'd
be a special room in it just for them. It was wrong for us to fight in
Vietnam, it's wrong today for us (US) to fight in Iraq. It's not our
business, job or jurisdiction. The sooner ERWBDCs figure that out the
better it'll be for all concerned.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "SEEYO" |
|
| Title: Re: George W. Bush should be in prison |
07 Oct 2005 10:10:58 AM |
|
|
The US is killing people not the UN. Since when has the US cared about UN
approval?
"Mimi Cohen" <imnot@cox.net> wrote in message
news:R3w1f.2846$gj1.430@fed1read05...
øéòéï áøúåïý/Riain Barton wrote:
Not before dividing Iraq into three states and bring in the U.N. to
ensure those new states are not invaded by each other or any neighbours.
It is a sad and pathetic situation that we have allowed the Kurds to go
stateless.
If by "we" you mean humanity ok, but if by "we" you mean the US; "WE" are
not and should not be the planets police, THAT job belongs to the UN. It's
a matter of jurisdiction, Iraq is the UN's jurisdiction, not ours.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: George W. Bush should be in prison |
12 Oct 2005 02:45:27 AM |
|
|
On 7-Oct-2005, "SEEYO" <no@none.com> wrote:
The US is killing people not the UN.
a) we're not alone
b) it's not through the UN's lack of trying
Since when has the US cared about UN
approval?
c) we should get out of the stupid useless group of circle jerks.
Susan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: George W. Bush should be in prison |
13 Oct 2005 12:55:50 AM |
|
|
<flaviaR@verizon.net> wrote:
On 7-Oct-2005, "SEEYO" <no@none.com> wrote:
The US is killing people not the UN.
a) we're not alone
95% of the troops in Iraq are from the US. Another 4% are from
Britain.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: George W. Bush should be in prison |
12 Oct 2005 02:44:30 AM |
|
|
On 6-Oct-2005, Mimi Cohen <imnot@cox.net> wrote:
flaviaR@verizon.net wrote:
Yes, I know he lied.
& I know his moticves are *far* from the purest.
But the re-attack on Iraq is neither illegal nor immoral.
It just so happens that it serves W's evil purposes *anyway*.
I can live with that, even if I'm not ecstatic about it.
Ok now I understand your position. I still think we need to get the hell
out of there, like yesterday.
Absolutely.
You can tell he had NO exit strategy when we went in there - the
provisions and subsequent actions were all indicative of a protracted stay.
Susan
I'm consistent by the way, I opposed
Vietnam for the same reasons I oppose Iraq. I support our troops and
that's part of the reason we need to get out of there now.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Clave" |
|
| Title: Re: George W. Bush should be in prison |
12 Oct 2005 03:01:34 AM |
|
|
<flaviaR@verizon.net> wrote in message news:y933f.20302$wm3.773@trnddc01...
On 6-Oct-2005, Mimi Cohen <imnot@cox.net> wrote:
flaviaR@verizon.net wrote:
Yes, I know he lied.
& I know his moticves are *far* from the purest.
But the re-attack on Iraq is neither illegal nor immoral.
It just so happens that it serves W's evil purposes *anyway*.
I can live with that, even if I'm not ecstatic about it.
Ok now I understand your position. I still think we need to get the hell
out of there, like yesterday.
Absolutely.
You can tell he had NO exit strategy when we went in there - the
provisions and subsequent actions were all indicative of a protracted
stay.
Not protracted. Permanent.
Jim
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: George W. Bush should be in prison |
06 Oct 2005 08:57:55 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 00:26:16 GMT, wrote:
You are unfairly judging the whole thing from the viewpoint of 20/20
hindsight.
*Because* he was breaking the terms of the surrender he signed, he made
*everyone (not just Bush & his sock-puppet cronies)* think that he really
did
have WMDs. In a way, he was begging to be re-attacked.
Nonsense. Everyone?
Sheesh.
____
"Russia does not have in its possession any trustworthy data that
would support the existence of nuclear weapons on any weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq, and we have not received from our partners such
information as yet," Putin told a press conference after his recent
meetings with Tony Blair in the Russian countryside, including the
British government's recently disclosed dossier that alleges Saddam
has weapons of mass destruction that he's ready to use.
Oct 17, 2002
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/DJ17Ak03.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: George W. Bush should be in prison |
06 Oct 2005 10:19:28 PM |
|
|
On 6-Oct-2005, wrote:
On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 00:26:16 GMT, wrote:
You are unfairly judging the whole thing from the viewpoint of 20/20
hindsight.
*Because* he was breaking the terms of the surrender he signed, he made
*everyone (not just Bush & his sock-puppet cronies)* think that he really
did
have WMDs. In a way, he was begging to be re-attacked.
Nonsense.
No, your bull about the whole thing being for Israel is what's nonsense &
worse.
Everyone?
When Democratic leaders are on record as saying that they "know he has WMDs"
then I'd say "yes, everyone."
For you to pretend that Imeant everyone on the planet is desperately
disingenuousness.
Sheesh.
Indeed.
Ssuan
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: George W. Bush should be in prison |
07 Oct 2005 10:26:47 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 03:19:28 GMT, wrote:
On 6-Oct-2005, wrote:
On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 00:26:16 GMT, wrote:
You are unfairly judging the whole thing from the viewpoint of 20/20
hindsight.
*Because* he was breaking the terms of the surrender he signed, he made
*everyone (not just Bush & his sock-puppet cronies)* think that he really
did
have WMDs. In a way, he was begging to be re-attacked.
Nonsense.
No, your bull about the whole thing being for Israel is what's nonsense &
worse.
I didn't say the whole thing. But I did post Perle's Likud paper and
the PNC piece on the need to get forward troops into the area being
more important than removing Saddam.
You ignored that. of course.
Everyone?
When Democratic leaders are on record as saying that they "know he has WMDs"
then I'd say "yes, everyone."
And you ignored the Putin quote saying there was no evidence.
For you to pretend that I meant everyone on the planet is desperately
disingenuousness.
If you didn't mean everyone you shouldn't say everyone.
Sheesh.
Indeed.
Ssuan
----------------
"Should any political party attempt to abolish
social security, unemployment insurance, and
eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would
not hear of that party again in our political
history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course,
that believes you can do these things. Among them
are [a] few other Texas oil millionaires, and an
occasional politician or business man from other
areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
- President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 11/8/54
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: George W. Bush should be in prison |
12 Oct 2005 02:50:08 AM |
|
|
On 7-Oct-2005, wrote:
On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 03:19:28 GMT, wrote:
On 6-Oct-2005, wrote:
On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 00:26:16 GMT, wrote:
You are unfairly judging the whole thing from the viewpoint of 20/20
hindsight.
*Because* he was breaking the terms of the surrender he signed, he
made
*everyone (not just Bush & his sock-puppet cronies)* think that he
really
did
have WMDs. In a way, he was begging to be re-attacked.
Nonsense.
No, your bull about the whole thing being for Israel is what's nonsense &
worse.
I didn't say the whole thing.
Then you said something close to that.
But I did post Perle's Likud paper and
the PNC piece on the need to get forward troops into the area being
more important than removing Saddam.
You ignored that. of course.
Perhaps because it wasn't in the post that I saw, and even what you post
here doesn't seem to have any bearing on that to which I was referring
Susan
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: George W. Bush should be in prison |
06 Oct 2005 08:54:44 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 00:26:16 GMT, wrote:
Well, the fact that he turned out to be a paper tiger should be one big
hint.
So, because he managed to fool people - the way he *wanted* to - we are
allowed to condemn an action *in retrospect"??
The UN inspectors provided a means to confirm or deny that. They
complained we were giving them useless "intel" and W. and company
called them incompetent for not finding WMDs. Can we measure w. by
the same standard? We wanted in. That's all we wanted., It had
nothing to do with Saddam. It had to do with having troops in the Gulf
and redrawing the map and interests for Israel.
Sources on motives:
I point you to a Richard Perle report drafted for Likud in 1996 (query
why a US policy advisor is doing issue papers for a foreign party):
http://www.sis.gov.eg/public/letter/html/text31.htm
And from the report:
"Moving to a Traditional Balance of Power Strategy
"We must distinguish soberly and clearly friend from foe. We must make
sure that our friends across the Middle East never doubt the solidity
or value of our friendship.
"Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with
Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back
Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in
Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as
a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions. Jordan has challenged
Syria's regional ambitions recently by suggesting the restoration of
the Hashemites in Iraq. This has triggered a Jordanian-Syrian rivalry
to which Asad has responded by stepping up efforts to destabilize the
Hashemite Kingdom, including using infiltrations. Syria recently
signaled that it and Iran might prefer a weak, but barely surviving
Saddam, if only to undermine and humiliate Jordan in its efforts to
remove Saddam.
"But Syria enters this conflict with potential weaknesses: Damascus is
too preoccupied with dealing with the threatened new regional equation
to permit distractions of the Lebanese flank. And Damascus fears that
the 'natural axis' with Israel on one side, central Iraq and Turkey on
the other, and Jordan, in the center would squeeze and detach Syria
from the Saudi Peninsula. For Syria, this could be the prelude to a
redrawing of the map of the Middle East which would threaten Syria's
territorial integrity.
"Since Iraq's future could affect the strategic balance in the Middle
East profoundly, it would be understandable that Israel has an
interest in supporting the Hashemites [the Hashmeites are a Family of
Arab royalty, that have ruled Iraq and now rule Jordan] in their
efforts to redefine Iraq, including such measures as: visiting Jordan
as the first official state visit, even before a visit to the United
States, of the new Netanyahu government; supporting King Hussein by
providing him with some tangible security measures to protect his
regime against Syrian subversion; encouraging — through influence in
the U.S.
business community — investment in Jordan to structurally shift
Jordan’s economy away from dependence on Iraq; and diverting Syria’s
attention by using Lebanese opposition elements to destabilize Syrian
control of Lebanon.
"Most important, it is understandable that Israel has an interest
supporting diplomatically, militarily and operationally Turkey’s and
Jordan’s actions against Syria, such as securing tribal alliances with
Arab tribes that cross into Syrian territory and are hostile to the
Syrian ruling elite.
"King Hussein may have ideas for Israel in bringing its Lebanon
problem
under control. The predominantly Shia population of southern Lebanon
has been tied for centuries to the Shia leadership in Najf, Iraq
rather than Iran. Were the Hashemites to control Iraq, they could use
their influence over Najf to help Israel wean the south Lebanese Shia
away from Hizballah, Iran, and Syria. Shia retain strong ties to the
Hashemites: the Shia venerate foremost the Prophet’s family, the
direct descendants of which — and in whose veins the blood of the
Prophet flows — is King Hussein. "
Add to this the New American Century Report from 2000:
"While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate
justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in
the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
From the New American Century - pre administration home of Rumsfeld,
Wolfowitz and Zoellick. Big surprise this all fits in so nicely with
their September 2000 paper?
While we're at it here's a Buchanan cirtique:
Why Iraq? Paul Wolfowitz - "Iraq was a brittle oppressive regime that
might break easily. It was doable."
Read the full article below.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/print/coverprint.html
Copyright March 24, 2003 The American Conservative
Whose War?
A neoconservative clique seeks to ensnare our country in a series of
wars that are not in Americas interest.
by Patrick J. Buchanan
The War Party may have gotten its war. But it has also gotten
something
it did not bargain for. Its membership lists and associations have
been
exposed and its motives challenged. In a rare moment in U.S.
journalism,
Tim Russert put this question directly to Richard Perle: Can you
assure
American viewers ... that were in this situation against Saddam
Hussein
and his removal for American security interests? And what would be the
link in terms of Israel?
Suddenly, the Israeli connection is on the table, and the War Party
is
not amused. Finding themselves in an unanticipated firefight, our
neoconservative friends are doing what comes naturally, seeking
student
deferments from political combat by claiming the status of a
persecuted
minority group. People who claim to be writing the foreign policy of
the
world superpower, one would think, would be a little more manly in the
schoolyard of politics. Not so.
Former Wall Street Journal editor Max Boot kicked off the campaign.
When these Buchananites toss around neoconservativeand cite names
like Wolfowitz and Cohenit sometimes sounds as if what they really
mean
is Jewish conservative. Yet Boot readily concedes that a passionate
attachment to Israel is a key tenet of neoconservatism. He also claims
that the National Security Strategy of President Bush sounds as if it
could have come straight out from the pages of Commentary magazine,
the
neocon bible. (For the uninitiated, Commentary, the bible in which
Boot
seeks divine guidance, is the monthly of the American Jewish
Committee.)
David Brooks of the Weekly Standard wails that attacks based on the
Israel tie have put him through personal hell: Now I get a steady
stream of anti Semitic screeds in my e-mail, my voicemail and in my
mailbox. ... Anti Semitism is alive and thriving. Its just that its
epicenter is no longer on the Buchananite Right, but on the
peace-movement left.
Washington Post columnist Robert Kagan endures his own purgatory
abroad: In London ... one finds Britains finest minds propounding, in
sophisticated language and melodious Oxbridge accents, the conspiracy
theories of Pat Buchanan concerning the neoconservative (read: Jewish)
hijacking of American foreign policy.
Lawrence Kaplan of the New Republic charges that our little magazine
has been transformed into a forum for those who contend that President
Bush has become a client of ... Ariel Sharon and the neoconservative
war party.
Referencing Charles Lindbergh, he accuses Paul Schroeder, Chris
Matthews, Robert Novak, Georgie Anne Geyer, Jason Vest of the Nation,
and Gary Hart of implying that members of the Bush team have been
doing
Israels bidding and, by extension, exhibiting dual loyalties. Kaplan
thunders:
The real problem with such claims is not just that they are
untrue. The problem is that they are toxic. Invoking the specter of
dual
loyalty to mute criticism and debate amounts to more than the
everyday pollution of public discourse. It is the nullification of
public discourse, for how can one refute accusations grounded
in
ethnicity? The charges are, ipso facto, impossible to disprove. And so
they are meant to be. What is going on here? Slates Mickey Kaus nails
it in the headline of his retort: Lawrence Kaplan Plays the
Anti-Semitic Card.
What Kaplan, Brooks, Boot, and Kagan are doing is what the Rev.
Jesse
Jackson does when caught with some mammoth contribution from a Fortune
500 company he has lately accused of discriminating. He plays the race
card. So, too, the neoconservatives are trying to fend off critics by
assassinating their character and impugning their motives.
Indeed, it is the charge of anti-Semitism itself that is toxic. For
this venerable slander is designed to nullify public discourse by
smearing and intimidating foes and censoring and blacklisting them and
any who would publish them. Neocons say we attack them because they
are
Jewish. We do not. We attack them because their warmongering threatens
our country, even as it finds a reliable echo in Ariel Sharon.
And this time the boys have cried wolf once too often. It is not
working. As Kaus notes, Kaplans own New Republic carries Harvard
professor Stanley Hoffman. In writing of the four power centers in
this
capital that are clamoring for war, Hoffman himself describes the
fourth
thus:
And, finally, there is a loose collection of friends of
Israel,
who believe in the identity of interests between the Jewish state and
the United States. These analysts look on foreign policy
through the lens of one dominant concern: Is it good or bad for
Israel?
Since that nations founding in 1948, these thinkers have never
been in very good odor at the State Department, but now they are well
ensconced in the Pentagon, around such strategists as Paul
Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Douglas Feith.
If Stanley Hoffman can say this, asks Kaus, why cant Chris
Matthews? Kaus also notes that Kaplan somehow failed to mention the
most devastating piece tying the neoconservatives to Sharon and his
Likud Party.
In a Feb. 9 front-page article in the Washington Post, Robert Kaiser
quotes a senior U.S. official as saying, The Likudniks are really in
charge now. Kaiser names Perle, Wolfowitz, and Feith as members of a
pro-Israel network inside the administration and adds David Wurmser of
the Defense Department and Elliott Abrams of the National Security
Council. (Abrams is the son-in-law of Norman Podhoretz, editor
emeritus
of Commentary, whose magazine has for decades branded critics of
Israel
as anti-Semites.)
Noting that Sharon repeatedly claims a special closeness to the
Bushites, Kaiser writes, For the first time a U.S. administration and
a
Likud government are pursuing nearly identical policies. And a valid
question is: how did this come to be, and while it is surely in
Sharons
interest, is it in Americas interest?
This is a time for truth. For America is about to make a momentous
decision: whether to launch a series of wars in the Middle East that
could ignite the Clash of Civilizations against which Harvard
professor
Samuel Huntington has warned, a war we believe would be a tragedy and
a
disaster for this Republic. To avert this war, to answer the neocon
smears, we ask that our readers review their agenda as stated in their
words. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. As Al Smith used to say,
Nothing un-American can live in the sunlight.
We charge that a cabal of polemicists and public officials seek to
ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in Americas
interests. We charge them with colluding with Israel to ignite those
wars and destroy the Oslo Accords. We charge them with deliberately
damaging U.S. relations with every state in the Arab world that defies
Israel or supports the Palestinian peoples right to a homeland of
their
own. We charge that they have alienated friends and allies all over
the
Islamic and Western world through their arrogance, hubris, and
bellicosity.
Not in our lifetimes has America been so isolated from old friends.
Far
worse, President Bush is being lured into a trap baited for him by
these
neocons that could cost him his office and cause America to forfeit
years of peace won for us by the sacrifices of two generations in the
Cold War.
They charge us with anti-Semitismi.e., a hatred of Jews for their
faith, heritage, or ancestry. False. The truth is, those hurling these
charges harbor a passionate attachment to a nation not our own that
causes them to subordinate the interests of their own country and to
act
on an assumption that, somehow, whats good for Israel is good for
America.
The Neoconservatives
Who are the neoconservatives? The first generation were ex-liberals,
socialists, and Trotskyites, boat-people from the McGovern revolution
who rafted over to the GOP at the end of conservatisms long march to
power with Ronald Reagan in 1980.
A neoconservative, wrote Kevin Phillips back then, is more likely to
be
a magazine editor than a bricklayer. Today, he or she is more likely
to
be a resident scholar at a public policy institute such as the
American
Enterprise Institute (AEI) or one of its clones like the Center for
Security Policy or the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs
(JINSA). As one wag writes, a neocon is more familiar with the inside
of
a think tank than an Abrams tank.
Almost none came out of the business world or military, and few if
any
came out of the Goldwater campaign. The heroes they invoke are Woodrow
Wilson, FDR, Harry Truman, Martin Luther King, and Democratic Senators
Henry Scoop Jackson (Wash.) and Pat Moynihan (N.Y.). All are
interventionists who regard Stakhanovite support of Israel as a
defining
characteristic of their breed. Among their luminaries are Jeane
Kirkpatrick, Bill Bennett, Michael Novak, and James Q. Wilson.
Their publications include the Weekly Standard, Commentary, the New
Republic, National Review, and the editorial page of the Wall Street
Journal. Though few in number, they wield disproportionate power
through
control of the conservative foundations and magazines, through their
syndicated columns, and by attaching themselves to men of power.
Beating the War Drums
When the Cold War ended, these neoconservatives began casting about
for
a new crusade to give meaning to their lives. On Sept. 11, their time
came. They seized on that horrific atrocity to steer Americas rage
into
all-out war to destroy their despised enemies, the Arab and Islamic
rogue states that have resisted U.S. hegemony and loathe Israel.
The War Partys plan, however, had been in preparation far in advance
of 9/11. And when President Bush, after defeating the Taliban, was
looking for a new front in the war on terror, they put their precooked
meal in front of him. Bush dug into it.
Before introducing the script-writers of Americas future wars,
consider the rapid and synchronized reaction of the neocons to what
happened after that fateful day.
On Sept. 12, Americans were still in shock when Bill Bennett told
CNN
that we were in a struggle between good and evil, that the Congress
must declare war on militant Islam, and that overwhelming force must
be used. Bennett cited Lebanon, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and China as
targets for attack. Not, however, Afghanistan, the sanctuary of Osamas
terrorists. How did Bennett know which nations must be smashed before
he
had any idea who attacked us?
The Wall Street Journal immediately offered up a specific target
list,
calling for U.S. air strikes on terrorist camps in Syria, Sudan,
Libya,
and Algeria, and perhaps even in parts of Egypt. Yet, not one of
Bennetts six countries, nor one of these five, had anything to do with
9/11.
On Sept. 15, according to Bob Woodwards Bush at War, Paul Wolfowitz
put forth military arguments to justify a U.S. attack on Iraq rather
than Afghanistan. Why Iraq? Because, Wolfowitz argued in the War
Cabinet, while attacking Afghanistan would be uncertain Iraq was a
brittle oppressive regime that might break easily. It was doable.
On Sept. 20, forty neoconservatives sent an open letter to the White
House instructing President Bush on how the war on terror must be
conducted. Signed by Bennett, Podhoretz, Kirkpatrick, Perle, Kristol,
and Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer, the letter was an
ultimatum. To retain the signers support, the president was told, he
must target Hezbollah for destruction, retaliate against Syria and
Iran
if they refuse to sever ties to Hezbollah, and overthrow Saddam. Any
failure to attack Iraq, the signers warned Bush, will constitute an
early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international
terrorism.
Here was a cabal of intellectuals telling the Commander-in-Chief,
nine
days after an attack on America, that if he did not follow their war
plans, he would be charged with surrendering to terror. Yet, Hezbollah
had nothing to do with 9/11. What had Hezbollah done? Hezbollah had
humiliated Israel by driving its army out of Lebanon.
President Bush had been warned. He was to exploit the attack of 9/11
to
launch a series of wars on Arab regimes, none of which had attacked
us.
All, however, were enemies of Israel. Bibi Netanyahu, the former Prime
Minister of Israel, like some latter-day Citizen Genet, was ubiquitous
on American television, calling for us to crush the Empire of Terror.
The Empire, it turns out, consisted of Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, Iraq,
and the Palestinian enclave.
Nasty as some of these regimes and groups might be, what had they
done
to the United States?
The War Party seemed desperate to get a Middle East war going before
America had second thoughts. Tom Donnelly of the Project for the New
American Century (PNAC) called for an immediate invasion of Iraq. Nor
need the attack await the deployment of half a million troops. [T]he
larger challenge will be occupying Iraq after the fighting is over, he
wrote.
Donnelly was echoed by Jonah Goldberg of National Review: The United
States needs to go to war with Iraq because it needs to go to war with
someone in the region and Iraq makes the most sense.
Goldberg endorsed the Ledeen Doctrine of ex-Pentagon official
Michael
Ledeen, which Goldberg described thus: Every ten years or so, the
United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and
throw it against the wall, just to show we mean business. (When the
French ambassador in London, at a dinner party, asked why we should
risk
World War III over some shitty little countrymeaning
IsraelGoldbergs magazine was not amused.)
Ledeen, however, is less frivolous. In The War Against the Terror
Masters, he identifies the exact regimes America must destroy:
First and foremost, we must bring down the terror regimes,
beginning with the Big Three: Iran, Iraq, and Syria. And then we have
to
come to grips with Saudi Arabia. Once the tyrants in Iran,
Iraq, Syria, and Saudi Arabia have been brought down, we will remain
engaged. We have to ensure the fulfillment of the democratic
revolution. Stability is an unworthy American mission, and a
misleading concept to boot. We do not want stability in Iran,
Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and even Saudi Arabia; we want things to change.
The real issue is not whether, but how to destabilize.
Rejecting stability as an unworthy American mission, Ledeen goes on
to define Americas authentic historic mission:
Creative destruction is our middle name, both within our
society
and abroad. We tear down the old order every day, from business to
science, literature, art, architecture, and cinema to politics
and the law. Our enemies have always hated this whirlwind of energy
and
creativity which menaces their traditions (whatever they may
be)
and shames them for their inability to keep pace. [W]e must destroy
them to advance our historic mission.
Passages like this owe more to Leon Trotsky than to Robert Taft and
betray a Jacobin streak in neoconservatism that cannot be reconciled
with any concept of true conservatism.
To the Weekly Standard, Ledeens enemies list was too restrictive. We
must not only declare war on terror networks and states that harbor
terrorists, said the Standard, we should launch wars on any group or
government inclined to support or sustain others like them in the
future.
Robert Kagan and William Kristol were giddy with excitement at the
prospect of Armageddon. The coming war is going to spread and engulf a
number of countries. It is going to resemble the clash of
civilizations that everyone has hoped to avoid. [I]t is possible that
the demise of some moderate Arab regimes may be just round the
corner.
Norman Podhoretz in Commentary even outdid Kristols Standard,
rhapsodizing that we should embrace a war of civilizations, as it is
George W. Bushs mission to fight World War IVthe war against militant
Islam. By his count, the regimes that richly deserve to be overthrown
are not confined to the three singled-out members of the axis of evil
(Iraq, Iran, North Korea). At a minimum, the axis should extend to
Syria
and Lebanon and Libya, as well as friends of America like the Saudi
royal family and Egypts Hosni Mubarak, along with the Palestinian
Authority. Bush must reject the timorous counsels of the incorrigibly
cautious Colin Powell, wrote Podhoretz, and find the stomach to impose
a new political culture on the defeated Islamic world. As the war
against al-Qaeda required that we destroy the Taliban, Podhoretz
wrote,
We may willy-nilly find ourselves forced to topple five or
six
or seven more tyrannies in the Islamic world (including that other
sponsor of terrorism, Yasir Arafats Palestinian Authority). I
can even [imagine] the turmoil of this war leading to some new species
of an imperial mission for America, whose purpose would be to
oversee the emergence of successor governments in the region more
amenable to reform and modernization than the despotisms now in
place. I can also envisage the establishment of some kind of American
protectorate over the oil fields of Saudi Arabia, as we more
and
more come to wonder why 7,000 princes should go on being permitted to
exert so much leverage over us and everyone else.
Podhoretz credits Eliot Cohen with the phrase World War IV. Bush was
shortly thereafter seen carrying about a gift copy of Cohens book that
celebrates civilian mastery of the military in times of war, as
exhibited by such leaders as Winston Churchill and David Ben Gurion.
A list of the Middle East regimes that Podhoretz, Bennett, Ledeen,
Netanyahu, and the Wall Street Journal regard as targets for
destruction
thus includes Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Sudan, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq,
Saudi
Arabia, Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, the Palestinian Authority, and
militant
Islam.
Cui Bono? For whose benefit these endless wars in a region that
holds
nothing vital to America save oil, which the Arabs must sell us to
survive? Who would benefit from a war of civilizations between the
West
and Islam?
Answer: one nation, one leader, one party. Israel, Sharon, Likud.
Indeed, Sharon has been everywhere the echo of his acolytes in
America.
In February 2003, Sharon told a delegation of Congressmen that, after
Saddams regime is destroyed, it is of vital importance that the
United States disarm Iran, Syria, and Libya.
We have a great interest in shaping the Middle East the day after
the
war on Iraq, Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz told the Conference of Major
American Jewish Organizations. After U.S. troops enter Baghdad, the
United States must generate political, economic, diplomatic pressure
on Tehran, Mofaz admonished the American Jews.
Are the neoconservatives concerned about a war on Iraq bringing down
friendly Arab governments? Not at all. They would welcome it.
Mubarak is no great shakes, says Richard Perle of the President of
Egypt. Surely we can do better than Mubarak. Asked about the
possibility that a war on Iraqwhich he predicted would be a
cakewalkmight upend governments in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, former UN
ambassador Ken Adelman told Joshua Micah Marshall of Washington
Monthly,
All the better if you ask me.
On July 10, 2002, Perle invited a former aide to Lyndon LaRouche
named
Laurent Murawiec to address the Defense Policy Board. In a briefing
that
startled Henry Kissinger, Murawiec named Saudi Arabia as the kernel of
evil, the prime mover, the most dangerous opponent of the United
States.
Washington should give Riyadh an ultimatum, he said. Either you
Saudis
prosecute or isolate those involved in the terror chain, including the
Saudi intelligence services, and end all propaganda against Israel, or
we invade your country, seize your oil fields, and occupy Mecca.
In closing his PowerPoint presentation, Murawiec offered a Grand
Strategy for the Middle East. Iraq is the tactical pivot, Saudi Arabia
the strategic pivot, Egypt the prize. Leaked reports of Murawiecs
briefing did not indicate if anyone raised the question of how the
Islamic world might respond to U.S. troops tramping around the grounds
of the Great Mosque.
What these neoconservatives seek is to conscript American blood to
make
the world safe for Israel. They want the peace of the sword imposed on
Islam and American soldiers to die if necessary to impose it.
Washington Times editor at large Arnaud de Borchgrave calls this the
Bush-Sharon Doctrine. Washingtons Likudniks, he writes, have
been in charge of U.S. policy in the Middle East since Bush was sworn
into office.
The neocons seek American empire, and Sharonites seek hegemony over
the
Middle East. The two agendas coincide precisely. And though neocons
insist that it was Sept. 11 that made the case for war on Iraq and
militant Islam, the origins of their war plans go back far before.
Securing the Realm
The principal draftsman is Richard Perle, an aide to Sen. Scoop
Jackson, who, in 1970, was overheard on a federal wiretap discussing
classified information from the National Security Council with the
Israeli Embassy. In Jews and American Politics, published in 1974,
Stephen D. Isaacs wrote, Richard Perle and Morris Amitay command a
tiny
army of Semitophiles on Capitol Hill and direct Jewish power in behalf
of Jewish interests. In 1983, the New York Times reported that Perle
had taken substantial payments from an Israeli weapons manufacturer.
In 1996, with Douglas Feith and David Wurmser, Perle wrote A Clean
Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm, for Prime Minister
Netanyahu. In it, Perle, Feith, and Wurmser urged Bibi to ditch the
Oslo
Accords of the assassinated Yitzak Rabin and adopt a new aggressive
strategy:
Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation
with
Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back
Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from
power in Iraqan important Israeli strategic objective in its own
rightas a means of foiling Syrias regional ambitions. Jordan
has challenged Syrias regional ambitions recently by suggesting the
restoration of the Hashemites in Iraq.
In the Perle-Feith-Wurmser strategy, Israels enemy remains Syria,
but
the road to Damascus runs through Baghdad. Their plan, which urged
Israel to re establish the principle of preemption, has now been
imposed by Perle, Feith, Wurmser & Co. on the United States.
In his own 1997 paper, A Strategy for Israel, Feith pressed Israel
to
re occupy the areas under Palestinian Authority control, though the
price in blood would be high.
Wurmser, as a resident scholar at AEI, drafted joint war plans for
Israel and the United States to fatally strike the centers of
radicalism in the Middle East. Israel and the United States should
broaden the conflict to strike fatally, not merely disarm, the centers
of radicalism in the regionthe regimes of Damascus, Baghdad, Tripoli,
Tehran, and Gaza. That would establish the recognition that fighting
either the United States or Israel is suicidal.
He urged both nations to be on the lookout for a crisis, for as he
wrote, Crises can be opportunities. Wurmser published his U.S.-Israeli
war plan on Jan. 1, 2001, nine months before 9/11.
About the Perle-Feith-Wurmser cabal, author Michael Lind writes:
The radical Zionist right to which Perle and Feith belong is
small in number but it has become a significant force in Republican
policy-making circles. It is a recent phenomenon, dating back
to
the late 1970s and 1980s, when many formerly Democratic Jewish
intellectuals joined the broad Reagan coalition. While many of
these hawks speak in public about global crusades for democracy, the
chief concern of many such neo conservatives is the power and
reputation of Israel. Right down the smokestack.
Perle today chairs the Defense Policy Board, Feith is an
Undersecretary
of Defense, and Wurmser is special assistant to the Undersecreta | | | | |
