| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
08 Oct 2004 10:54:34 AM |
| Object: |
OT: ATTN MAFF |
I had archived the source for the Bush quote a couple months
(thereabouts) before Powells' UN "dog and pony show" where he
indicated; "It doesn't matter what Saddam does I {we} are going to
invade anyway."
A computer crash took it out and I'm not able to locate the source(s)
online. Are you aware of any sources?
Thank you.
**
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Vote for Bush. Why vote for the lesser of two evils?
No matter the candidates the superstition industry wins.
'Jesus' is a sock-puppet Christians utilize to add 'authority' to
whatever action they intend on taking. -Stoney
.
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: ATTN MAFF |
09 Oct 2004 03:32:17 AM |
|
|
wrote in message news:<qrddm0heptk4l8hfnd0rk68041gu9fkeuv@4ax.com>...
I had archived the source for the Bush quote a couple months
(thereabouts) before Powells' UN "dog and pony show" where he
indicated; "It doesn't matter what Saddam does I {we} are going to
invade anyway."
A computer crash took it out and I'm not able to locate the source(s)
online. Are you aware of any sources?
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=Powell%20dog%20and%20pony%20show&safe=images&as_ugroup=alt.atheism&lr=&num=100&hl=en
Thank you.
**
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Vote for Bush. Why vote for the lesser of two evils?
No matter the candidates the superstition industry wins.
'Jesus' is a sock-puppet Christians utilize to add 'authority' to
whatever action they intend on taking. -Stoney
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: ATTN MAFF |
09 Oct 2004 11:47:57 PM |
|
|
On 9 Oct 2004 01:32:17 -0700, (maff) wrote:
stoney@the.net wrote in message news:<qrddm0heptk4l8hfnd0rk68041gu9fkeuv@4ax.com>...
I had archived the source for the Bush quote a couple months
(thereabouts) before Powells' UN "dog and pony show" where he
indicated; "It doesn't matter what Saddam does I {we} are going to
invade anyway."
A computer crash took it out and I'm not able to locate the source(s)
online. Are you aware of any sources?
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=Powell%20dog%20and%20pony%20show&safe=images&as_ugroup=alt.atheism&lr=&num=100&hl=en
Nope, not it. I was trying to find the source news articles. Thanks
anyway.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Vote for Bush. Why vote for the lesser of two evils?
No matter the candidates the superstition industry wins.
'Jesus' is a sock-puppet Christians utilize to add 'authority' to
whatever action they intend on taking. -Stoney
.
|
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: ATTN MAFF |
10 Oct 2004 04:55:07 AM |
|
|
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote in message news:<0mfhm0h27t8hmbevf1ipoa60rf6n30evo1@4ax.com>...
On 9 Oct 2004 01:32:17 -0700, (maff) wrote:
stoney@the.net wrote in message news:<qrddm0heptk4l8hfnd0rk68041gu9fkeuv@4ax.com>...
I had archived the source for the Bush quote a couple months
(thereabouts) before Powells' UN "dog and pony show" where he
indicated; "It doesn't matter what Saddam does I {we} are going to
invade anyway."
A computer crash took it out and I'm not able to locate the source(s)
online. Are you aware of any sources?
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=Powell%20dog%20and%20pony%20show&safe=images&as_ugroup=alt.atheism&lr=&num=100&hl=en
Nope, not it. I was trying to find the source news articles. Thanks
anyway.
Try again.
http://www.google.com/search?q=Powell%20dog%20and%20pony%20show&num=100&hl=en&lr=&sa=N&tab=gw
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=Powell%20dog%20and%20pony%20show&safe=images&lr=&num=100&hl=en
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Vote for Bush. Why vote for the lesser of two evils?
No matter the candidates the superstition industry wins.
'Jesus' is a sock-puppet Christians utilize to add 'authority' to
whatever action they intend on taking. -Stoney
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: ATTN MAFF |
10 Oct 2004 01:47:34 PM |
|
|
On 10 Oct 2004 02:55:07 -0700, (maff) wrote:
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote in message news:<0mfhm0h27t8hmbevf1ipoa60rf6n30evo1@4ax.com>...
On 9 Oct 2004 01:32:17 -0700, (maff) wrote:
stoney@the.net wrote in message news:<qrddm0heptk4l8hfnd0rk68041gu9fkeuv@4ax.com>...
I had archived the source for the Bush quote a couple months
(thereabouts) before Powells' UN "dog and pony show" where he
indicated; "It doesn't matter what Saddam does I {we} are going to
invade anyway."
A computer crash took it out and I'm not able to locate the source(s)
online. Are you aware of any sources?
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=Powell%20dog%20and%20pony%20show&safe=images&as_ugroup=alt.atheism&lr=&num=100&hl=en
Nope, not it. I was trying to find the source news articles. Thanks
anyway.
Try again.
http://www.google.com/search?q=Powell%20dog%20and%20pony%20show&num=100&hl=en&lr=&sa=N&tab=gw
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=Powell%20dog%20and%20pony%20show&safe=images&lr=&num=100&hl=en
I'm looking for:
Bush
"It doesn't matter what Saddam does I/we are going to invade anyway."
It would have been before Feb 8, 2003
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Vote for Bush. Why vote for the lesser of two evils?
No matter the candidates the superstition industry wins.
'Jesus' is a sock-puppet Christians utilize to add 'authority' to
whatever action they intend on taking. -Stoney
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: ATTN MAFF |
10 Oct 2004 04:14:46 PM |
|
|
On 10 Oct 2004 02:55:07 -0700, (maff) wrote:
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote in message news:<0mfhm0h27t8hmbevf1ipoa60rf6n30evo1@4ax.com>...
On 9 Oct 2004 01:32:17 -0700, (maff) wrote:
stoney@the.net wrote in message news:<qrddm0heptk4l8hfnd0rk68041gu9fkeuv@4ax.com>...
I had archived the source for the Bush quote a couple months
(thereabouts) before Powells' UN "dog and pony show" where he
indicated; "It doesn't matter what Saddam does I {we} are going to
invade anyway."
A computer crash took it out and I'm not able to locate the source(s)
online. Are you aware of any sources?
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=Powell%20dog%20and%20pony%20show&safe=images&as_ugroup=alt.atheism&lr=&num=100&hl=en
Nope, not it. I was trying to find the source news articles. Thanks
anyway.
Try again.
http://www.google.com/search?q=Powell%20dog%20and%20pony%20show&num=100&hl=en&lr=&sa=N&tab=gw
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=Powell%20dog%20and%20pony%20show&safe=images&lr=&num=100&hl=en
a-ha. A lead.
http://www.rcci.net/globalizacion/2003/fg344.htm
Andy Clark:
President Bush did say that in the very last weeks [before the war].
He started talking about a war of liberation.
Noam Chomsky:
At the last minute, at the Azores summit, he said that, even if Saddam
Hussein and his associates leave the country, the United States is
going to invade anyway - meaning the US wants to control it.
/end snippet
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Vote for Bush. Why vote for the lesser of two evils?
No matter the candidates the superstition industry wins.
'Jesus' is a sock-puppet Christians utilize to add 'authority' to
whatever action they intend on taking. -Stoney
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: ATTN MAFF |
10 Oct 2004 04:54:17 PM |
|
|
On 10 Oct 2004 02:55:07 -0700, (maff) wrote:
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote in message news:<0mfhm0h27t8hmbevf1ipoa60rf6n30evo1@4ax.com>...
On 9 Oct 2004 01:32:17 -0700, (maff) wrote:
stoney@the.net wrote in message news:<qrddm0heptk4l8hfnd0rk68041gu9fkeuv@4ax.com>...
I had archived the source for the Bush quote a couple months
(thereabouts) before Powells' UN "dog and pony show" where he
indicated; "It doesn't matter what Saddam does I {we} are going to
invade anyway."
A computer crash took it out and I'm not able to locate the source(s)
online. Are you aware of any sources?
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=Powell%20dog%20and%20pony%20show&safe=images&as_ugroup=alt.atheism&lr=&num=100&hl=en
Nope, not it. I was trying to find the source news articles. Thanks
anyway.
Try again.
http://www.google.com/search?q=Powell%20dog%20and%20pony%20show&num=100&hl=en&lr=&sa=N&tab=gw
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=Powell%20dog%20and%20pony%20show&safe=images&lr=&num=100&hl=en
a-ha. A lead.
http://www.rcci.net/globalizacion/2003/fg344.htm
Andy Clark:
President Bush did say that in the very last weeks [before the war].
He started talking about a war of liberation.
Noam Chomsky:
At the last minute, at the Azores summit, he said that, even if Saddam
Hussein and his associates leave the country, the United States is
going to invade anyway - meaning the US wants to control it.
/end snippet
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20030811.htm
/aside
{3) source quote
https://www.zmag.org/admin/dynamic/fusebox.cfm?action=show_item_registration&Function=update&ItemID=4030#_ftn3
{Not authorized to access this page}
/aside
Preventive War 'the Supreme Crime'
Noam Chomsky
ZNet, August 11, 2003
September 2002 was marked by three events of considerable importance,
closely related. The most powerful state in history announced a new
National Security Strategy asserting that it will maintain global
hegemony permanently. Any challenge will be blocked by force, the
dimension in which the US reigns supreme. At the same time, the war
drums began to beat to mobilize the population for an invasion of
Iraq. And the campaign opened for the mid-term congressional
elections, which would determine whether the administration would be
able to carry forward its radical international and domestic agenda.
The new “imperial grand strategy,” as it was termed at once in the
leading establishment journal, presents the US as “a revisionist state
seeking to parlay its momentary advantages into a world order in which
it runs the show,” a “unipolar world” in which “no state or coalition
could ever challenge” it as “global leader, protector, and
enforcer.[1] These policies are fraught with danger even for the US
itself, the author warned, joining many others in the foreign policy
elite
What is to be “protected” is US power and the interests it represents,
not the world, which vigorously opposed the conception. Within a few
months, studies revealed that fear of the United States had reached
remarkable heights, along with distrust of the political leadership.
An international Gallup poll in December, barely noted in the US,
found virtually no support for Washington’s announced plans for a war
in Iraq carried out “unilaterally by America and its allies”: in
effect, the US-UK “coalition.”
Washington informed the UN that it can be “relevant” by endorsing
Washington’s plans, or it can be a debating society. The US has the
“sovereign right to take military action,” the administration moderate
Colin Powell informed the World Economic Forum, which also strenuously
opposed Washington’s war plans: “When we feel strongly about something
we will lead,” he informed them, even if no one is following us.[2]
Bush and Blair underscored their contempt for international law and
institutions at their Azores Summit on the eve of the invasion. They
issued an ultimatum – not to Iraq, but to the Security Council:
capitulate, or we will invade without your meaningless seal of
approval. And we will do so whether or not Saddam Hussein and his
family leave the country.[3] The crucial principle is that the US must
effectively rule Iraq.
President Bush declared that the US “has the sovereign authority to
use force in assuring its own national security,” threatened by Iraq
with or without Saddam, according to the Bush doctrine. Washington
will be happy to establish an “Arab façade,” to borrow the term of the
British during their day in the sun, while US power is firmly
implanted at the heart of the world’s major energy-producing region.
Formal democracy will be fine, but only if it is of the submissive
kind accepted in Washington’s “backyard,” at least if history and
current practice are any guide.
The grand strategy authorizes Washington to carry out “preventive
war”: Preventive, not pre-emptive. Whatever the justifications for
pre-emptive war might be, they do not hold for preventive war,
particularly as that concept is interpreted by its current
enthusiasts: the use of military force to eliminate an invented or
imagined threat, so that even the term “preventive” is too charitable.
Preventive war is, very simply, the “supreme crime” condemned at
Nuremberg.
That was understood by those with some concern for their country. As
the US invaded Iraq, historian Arthur Schlesinger wrote that Bush’s
grand strategy is “alarmingly similar to the policy that imperial
Japan employed at Pearl Harbor, on a date which, as an earlier
American president said it would, lives in infamy.” FDR was right, he
added, “but today it is we Americans who live in infamy.” It is no
surprise that “the global wave of sympathy that engulfed the United
States after 9/11 has given way to a global wave of hatred of American
arrogance and militarism,” and the belief that Bush is “a greater
threat to peace than Saddam Hussein.”[4]
For the political leadership, mostly recycled from more reactionary
sectors of the Reagan-Bush I administrations, “the global wave of
hatred” is not a particular problem. They want to be feared, not
loved. It is natural for Donald Rumsfeld to quote the words of
Chicago gangster Al Capone: “You will get more with a kind word and a
gun than with a kind word alone.” They understand as well as their
establishment critics that their actions increase the risk of
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and terror. But
that too is not a major problem. Far higher in the scale of
priorities are the goals of establishing global hegemony and
implementing their domestic agenda: dismantling the progressive
achievements that have been won by popular struggle over the past
century, and institutionalizing these radical changes so that
recovering them will be no easy task.
It is not enough for a hegemonic power to declare an official policy.
It must establish it as a “new norm of international law” by exemplary
action. Distinguished commentators may then explain that law is a
flexible living instrument, so that the new norm is now available as a
guide to action. It is understood that only those with the guns can
establish “norms” and modify international law.
The selected target must meet several conditions. It must be
defenseless, important enough to be worth the trouble, and an imminent
threat to our survival and ultimate evil. Iraq qualified on all
counts. The first two conditions are obvious. For the third, it
suffices to repeat the orations of Bush, Blair, and their colleagues:
the dictator “is assembling the world’s most dangerous weapons [in
order to] dominate, intimidate or attack”; and he “has already used
them on whole villages leaving thousands of his own citizens dead,
blind or transfigured….If this is not evil then evil has no meaning.”
President Bush’s eloquent denunciation surely rings true. And those
who contributed to enhancing evil should certainly not enjoy impunity:
among them, the speaker of these lofty words and his current
associates, and those who joined them in the years when they were
supporting the man of ultimate evil long after he had committed these
terrible crimes and after the war with Iraq – because of our duty to
help US exporters, the Bush I administration explained. It is
impressive to see how easy it is for political leaders, while
recounting the monster’s worst crimes, to suppress the crucial words:
“with our help, because we don’t care about such matters.” Support
shifted to denunciation as soon as their friend committed his first
authentic crime: disobeying (or perhaps misunderstanding) orders by
invading Kuwait. Punishment was severe -- for his subjects. The
tyrant escaped unscathed, and was further strengthened by the
sanctions regime then imposed by his former allies.
Also easy to suppress are the reasons why Washington returned to
support for Saddam immediately after the Gulf war, as he crushed
rebellions that might have overthrown him. The chief diplomatic
correspondent of the New York Times explained that “the best of all
worlds” for Washington would be "an iron-fisted Iraqi junta without
Saddam Hussein,” but since that goal seemed unattainable, we would
have to be satisfied with second best. The rebels failed because
Washington and its allies held the “strikingly unanimous view [that]
whatever the sins of the Iraqi leader, he offered the West and the
region a better hope for his country's stability than did those who
have suffered his repression."[5] All of this is suppressed in the
commentary on the mass graves of the victims of Saddam’s US-authorized
paroxysm of terror, now offered as justification for the war on “moral
grounds.”[6] It was all known in 1991, but ignored for reasons of
state.
A reluctant domestic population had to be whipped to a proper mood of
war fever. From early September, grim warnings were issued about the
dire threat Saddam posed to the United States and his links to
al-Qaeda, with broad hints that he was involved in the 9-11 attacks.
Many of the charges “dangled in front of [the media] failed the laugh
test,” the editor of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists commented, “but
the more ridiculous [they were,] the more the media strove to make
whole-hearted swallowing of them a test of patriotism.”[7]
The propaganda assault had its effects. Within weeks, a majority of
Americans came to regard Saddam Hussein as an imminent threat to the
US. Soon almost half believed that Iraq was behind the 9/11 terror.
Support for the war correlated with these beliefs. The propaganda
campaign proved just enough to give the administration a bare majority
in the mid-term elections, as voters put aside their immediate
concerns and huddled under the umbrella of power in fear of the
demonic enemy.
The brilliant success of “public diplomacy” was revealed when the
President “provided a powerful Reaganesque finale to a six-week war”
on the deck of the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln on May 1. The
reference, presumably, is to Reagan’s proud declaration that America
was “standing tall” after conquering the nutmeg capital of the world
in 1983, preventing the Russians from using it to bomb the US.
Reagan’s mimic was free to declare -- without concern for skeptical
comment at home – that he had won a “victory in a war on terror [by
having] removed an ally of Al Qaeda.”[8] It is immaterial that no
credible evidence was provided for the alleged link between Saddam
Hussein and his bitter enemy Osama bin Laden and that the charge was
dismissed by competent observers. Also immaterial is the only known
connection between the victory and terror: the invasion appears to
have been a “huge setback in the `war on terror’,” by sharply
increasing al-Qaeda recruitment, as US official concede.[9]
The Wall Street Journal recognized that Bush’s carefully-staged
Abraham Lincoln extravaganza “marks the beginning of his 2004
re-election campaign,” which the White House hopes “will be built as
much as possible around national-security themes.” The electoral
campaign will focus on “the battle of Iraq, not the war,” chief
Republican political strategist Karl Rove explained”[10]: the war must
continue, if only to control the population at home. Before the 2002
elections, he had instructed Party activists to stress security
issues, diverting attention from unpopular Republican domestic
policies. All of this is second-nature to the recycled Reaganites now
in office. That is how they held on to political power during their
first tenure in office, regularly pushing the panic button to evade
public opposition to the policies that left Reagan the most disliked
living President by 1992, ranking alongside Nixon.
Despite its narrow successes, the intensive propaganda campaign left
the public unswayed in more fundamental respects. Most continue to
prefer UN rather than US leadership in international crises, and by
2-1, prefer that the UN, rather than the United States, should direct
reconstruction in Iraq.[11]
When the occupying army failed to discover WMD, the administration’s
stance shifted from “absolute certainty” that Iraq possessed WMD to
the position that the accusations were “justified by the discovery of
equipment that potentially could be used to produce weapons.”[12]
Senior officials suggested a “refinement” in the concept of
preventive war that entitles the US to attack “a country that has
deadly weapons in mass quantities.” The revision “suggests instead
that the administration will act against a hostile regime that has
nothing more than the intent and ability to develop [WMD].”[13]
Lowering of the bars for the resort to force is the most significant
consequence of the collapse of the proclaimed argument for the
invasion.
Perhaps the most spectacular propaganda achievement was the lauding of
the president’s “vision” to bring democracy to the Middle East in the
midst of an extraordinary display of hatred and contempt for
democracy. One illustration was the distinction between Old and New
Europe, the former reviled, the latter hailed for its courage. The
criterion was sharp: Old Europe consists of governments that took the
same position as the vast majority of their populations; the heroes of
New Europe followed orders from Crawford Texas, disregarding an even
larger majority, in most cases. Political commentators ranted about
disobedient Old Europe and its psychic maladies, while Congress
descended to low comedy.
At the liberal end of the spectrum, Richard Holbrooke stressed “the
very important point” that the population of the eight original
members of New Europe is larger than that of Old Europe, which proves
that France and Germany are “isolated.” So it does, unless we succumb
to the radical left heresy that the public might have some role in a
democracy. Thomas Friedman urged that France be removed from the
permanent members of the Security Council, because it is “in
kindergarten,” and “does not play well with others.” It follows that
the population of New Europe must still be in nursery school, judging
by polls.[14]
Turkey was a particularly instructive case. The government resisted
heavy pressure to prove its “democratic credentials” by following
orders, overruling 95% of its population. Commentators were infuriated
by this lesson in democracy, so much so that some even reported
Turkey’s crimes against the Kurds in the 1990s, previously a taboo
topic because of the crucial US role -- though that was still
carefully concealed in the lamentations.
The crucial point was expressed by Paul Wolfowitz, who condemned the
Turkish military because they “did not play the strong leadership role
that we would have expected” and did not intervene to prevent the
government from honoring near-unanimous public opinion. Turkey must
therefore step up and say “We made a mistake…Let’s figure out how we
can be as helpful as possible to the Americans.”[15] Wolfowitz’s stand
is particularly informative because he is portrayed as the leading
figure in the crusade to democratize the Middle East.
Anger at Old Europe has much deeper roots than contempt for democracy.
The US has always regarded European unification with some ambivalence.
In his “Year of Europe” address 30 years ago, Henry Kissinger advised
Europeans to keep to their “regional responsibilities” within the
“overall framework of order” managed by the United States.” Europe
must not pursue its own independent course, based on its Franco-German
industrial and financial heartland. Concerns now extend as well to
Northeast Asia, the world’s most dynamic economic region, with ample
resources and advanced industrial economies, a potentially integrated
region that might also flirt with challenging the overall framework of
order, which is to be maintained permanently, by force if necessary,
Washington has declared.
[1] John Ikenberry, Foreign Affairs, Sept.-Oct. 2002.
[2] Wall Street Journal, Jan. 27, 2003 .
[3] Michael Gordon, New York Times, March 18, 2003 .
[4] Los Angeles Times, March 23, 2003 .
[5] Thomas Friedman, NYT, June 7, 1991 . Alan Cowell, NYT, April 11,
1991 .
[6] Thomas Friedman, NYT, June 4, 2003 .
[7] Linda Rothstein, editor, BAS July 2003.
[8] Elisabeth Bumiller, NYT, May 2, 2003 ; Transcript, same day.
[9] Jason Burke, London Sunday Observer, May 18, 2003 .
[10] Jeanne Cummings and Greg Hite, WSJ, May 2, 2003 . Francis
Clines, NYT, Op-ed, May 10, 2003 ; Rove’s emphasis.
[11] Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA), U. of Maryland,
April 18-22.
[12] Dana Milbank, Washington Post, June 1, 2003
[13] Guy Dinmore and James Harding, Financial Times, May 3/4, 2003.
[14] Lee Michael Katz, National Journal, Feb. 8, 2003; Friedman, NYT,
Feb. 9, 2003.
[15] Marc Lacey, NYT, May 7/8 2003.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Vote for Bush. Why vote for the lesser of two evils?
No matter the candidates the superstition industry wins.
'Jesus' is a sock-puppet Christians utilize to add 'authority' to
whatever action they intend on taking. -Stoney
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
