Thanks Cyrena.  M/R’s perceptions of Iraq are deeply colored by a corporate media that acts as a propaganda network.  I have no doubt that Saddam was a ruthless dictator--aided in his rise to power by the CIA.  But let’s examine one of the atrocities our media laid at his feet, Halabja.

The basic facts remain in dispute.  Stephen Pelletiere, a former CIA analyst, received the assignment to investigate the attack from the U.S. Army.  Pelletier asserts Halabja was infiltrated by Iranians; that the decision to use chemical weapons was made by a local Iraqi commander (as opposed to higher-ups like “Chemical Ali” or Saddam Hussein) and that Kurds were killed as “collateral damage.” He notes a separate D.I.A. investigation concluded that “the Kurds had been killed by Iranian gas, not by Iraqi gas.  And they determined this because the extremities were blue, and that indicated a cyanide-based gas, and the Iraqis didn’t have it.”

Per John Stauber, in the wake of this event, Colin Powell, then Reagan’s national security adviser, led a 1988 effort to block passage of bipartisan legislation to prevent genocide.  During the buildup to “Operation Desert Storm,” the Bush I administration avoided all mention of Halabja. 

“Halabja was mentioned in 188 news stories in the U.S. in 1988, the year it occurred.  It was rarely mentioned…in subsequent years….Between the invasion of Kuwait on August 2, 1990 and the end of Operation Desert Storm on February 27, 1991, Halabja received only 39 mentions.  And during the entire following decade, it barely averaged 16 mentions per year.”

Halabja was resurrected in the press only after the Bush II administration began pushing for an invasion in September 2002, with the number of mentions increasing to 57 in February 2003, up to 145 by March 2003—the month of the invasion.

Where the Bush I administration and Senator Dole had fought sanctions against Iraq in 1988 and where official sources had, at that time, looked to Iran as the source, on 9/28/03 Colin Powell appeared on ABC where he asserted that the March 1988 attack on Halabja involved an instance where “Saddam Hussein gassed the people with VX, with sarin, nerve agents, and it killed 5,000 people in one day; that was 15 years ago.  Now, if you want to believe that he suddenly gave up that weapon…I think you’re…a bit naïve….”

The pace of corporate media “news” which uncritically parrots official sources sans critical reflection that places official claims into historical context inculcates a collective amnesia.  “Oceania is at war with Eurasia.  Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia.” George Orwell, “1984”

From the jacket flap of Sheldon Wolin’s “Democracy Incorporated”

“Democracy is struggling in America --- by now this statement is almost cliché. But what if the country is no longer a democracy at all? In Democracy Incorporated, Sheldon Wolin considers the unthinkable: has America unwittingly morphed into a new ad strange kind of political hybrid, one where economic and state powers are cojoined and virtually unbridled? Can the nation check its descent into what the author terms ‘inverted totalitarianism”?

Wolin portrays a country where citizens are politically uninterested and submissive --- and where elites are eager to keep them that way. At best the nation has become a ‘managed democracy’ where the public is shepherded, not sovereign. At worst it is a place where corporate power no longer answers to state controls. Wolin makes clear that today’s America is in no way morally or politically comparable to totalitarian states like Nazi Germany, yet he warns that unchecked economic power risks verging on total power and has its own unnerving pathologies.

Wolin examines the myths and mythmaking that justify today’s politics, the quest for an ever-expanding economy, and the perverse attractions of an endless war on terror. He argues passionately that democracy’s best hope lies in citizens themselves learning anew to exercise power at the local level.

Democracy Incorporated is one of the most worrying diagnoses of America’s political ills to emerge in decades. It is sure to be a lightening rod for political debate for years to come.”

Sheldon S. Wolin is professor emeritus of politics at Princeton University.

Comments from the back..

“For half a century, Sheldon Wolin has been one of the most distinguished and influential political theorists in the United States and a perceptive observer of the American Political scene. In his magisterial latest book, Wolin shows himself at the height of his powers as he presents a highly original, sober, and persuasive account of a number of tendencies in contemporary American society that constitute a significant danger for the future of constitutional democracy. If totalitarianism establishes itself in the United States, it will be in the inverted form Wolin analyzes in this important book.”

~Raymond Geuss, University of Cambridge

Just as a reminder, for those who may have missed it, Chalmers Johnson reviewed this in-depth a few months back, here on TD

Here’s the link for anyone who might want to check it out.

http://www.truthdig.com/arts_culture/item/20080515_cha lmers_johnson_on_our_managed_democracy/

Oh, the book is published by Princeton University Press

Ernest,

Thanks for the diddy. I actually have the same thing (minus the reference to the deniers) on my front door, in the form of what I guess can only be called what it is..a bumper sticker. Sounds tacky I know, it’s far more than tacky for bush lies that cause millions of people to die. Anyway, that could be why a handful around here, (SPECIFICALLY THE CORPORATE ADMINISTRATORS) like to hassle me, though it would have been far easier for them to just ask me to remove the thing. (not that I would have, but at least I’d have more verification of what their ‘issues’ are).

R/M like to selectively draw on the past history of Iraq (but more specifically Saddam) for all of their apologies for the millions of deaths, and the destruction of a sovereign nation state.

I don’t know of ANY ‘reasonable’ person who would not admit to most of Saddam’s crimes, MANY of them aided and abetted by some of the very same characters that manufactured all of these bogus claims as a reason for the destruction.

But at the end of the day, Dick Bush has succeeded in slaughtering 1000+ times the number of people that Saddam ever did, in over 30 years worth of his tyrannical nationalism. Oh yes...Dick Bush has slaughtered and destroyed so much more, that it cannot ever be measured.

I’ve had the fortune of visiting that part of the world in the past, and I’m so very glad that I did. Mesopotamia, the birthplace of civilization, was indeed a beautiful place. But those were far better times then, under that rule of Saddam, and I don’t know any people who are still around who can make a comparison to things as they were under Saddam, to the way things were under the rule of the British before that.

I did read one lengthy interview from an old Iraqi who does still remember the occupation of the British though, comparing it to the occupations of the US now. In short, he was not kind or complimentary to the current US behavior at all. All in all, the British were far more humane and respectful of the humanity of the native occupants of that region, and that was long before the advent of international law REQUIRING such measures.

That said, the behavior of the Dick Bush administration has been 1000% criminal on more levels than we can even count, though there are certainly several groups of us trying to keep track, and get the paperwork ready, as we continue to update it. Whether the do-nothings like Pelosi and the rest of the gang complicit in allowing the destruction ever get around to impeaching them or not, I’m committed, (along with many others) to seeing them all at The Hague. If Vincent Bugliosi can get the ball rolling on murder prosecutions for them, I’ll help in any way I can. Just find me a place to put my laptop, and make sure there’s a working coffee pot.

Meantime, I’m about half-way through Sheldon Wolin’s latest masterpiece, “Democracy Incorporated: managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism.” It’s a must read for anyone who actually wants to understand how it happened, so I highly recommend it. In fact, I’ll post the text from the jacket in another post.

By-the-way…good decision on the realization that it REALLY IS POINTLESS, to attempt to engage either of the ideologues with reason, logic, or any combination thereof. I understand your reluctance in that acceptance, just because you’re infinitely more patient than I am these days. I can only do so much insanity, even when the person really can’t help themselves. So, I have to take that in very small doses, and can only extend that to loved ones. With willful ignorance, I have ZERO tolerance, if only because there are far too many other people and efforts to spend the energy on. My energy is not infinite, and I despise waste.

Cyrena, I have reluctantly come to the realization that it is pointless to present facts or reason to intellectually dishonest, neocon trolls.  So, instead, I will post a little ditty and do my best to ignore their future mumblings.

Bush lied.
People died.
And Marshall & Rus7355 have not been able
to produce a single fact to show otherwise.

By Rus7355, August 11 at 3:02 am #

I agree that the anti-war left suffers from collective amnesia regarding Iraq.  And much of what is posted here is severely revisionist in nature.  It’s even spilled over to Afghanistan to a great extent; either by ignoring it altogether despite its importance, or simply lumping it together with Iraq into the “U.S. Imperialism” charge.  Although there was a sizable populist anti-war movement against our involvement in Afghanistan at the time, virtually every policy maker supported our invasion.  But those who hate the current administration have no use for historical fact that spoils their blame game.  With the apparent defection of Suskind’s two most prominent sources, and his innuendo that their about face was part of a larger conspiracy, I suspect this latest attack (which is already based entirely on hearsay) will dissolve as quickly as past “bombshells” that turned out to be duds.  If he had some physical proof then he’d have a case, but he doesn’t.  I’m sure he’ll make some good money off the book though, just as I’m sure Tony Snow did.  I sense a pattern here.

By cann4ing, August 10 at 3:23 pm #

I’m afraid I don’t speak for Rus, so I’m not going to attempt to address your questions.  My points about the Suskind book are contained in my earlier posts so if you want to dispute them, you’re free to do so.  So far, you’ve posted a number of inaccuracies regarding things like Congress’ access to pre-war intel., WH involvement in intelligence reports, and timing of U.S. Iraq policy that make me think you’re reciting left-wing talking points without doing your own research.  Doing your own research (using legitimate sources, not “private” news sites) is crucial to informed discussion.

With Rus so rooted in the past, I thought it might be helpful to actually post that information from 10 years ago. I don’t know that ANYONE has ever denied the illegal activity that Bill Clinton pursued in the strike against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq 10 years ago, and I’ve never denied that his strike in the Balkans was illegal as well, having done both without authority or resolution from the UN Security Council.
He used the same excuse then, as Bush II has used since, (except of course Dick Bush specifically forged documents to try to make their case, and that has long since been confirmed).
Still, the bottom line argument for Clinton, (on the eve of his impeachment) was that Saddam had failed to live up to inspections, and that Saddam had used these biological weapons before. (true, but for whatever the reasons, nobody bothered to stop him then).
Anyway, since rus is so rooted in past history, with the theory of his apologist argument based on the ‘They did it too’ rationale, I thought it would be helpful to provide the ‘they did it too’ text. It’s a pretty sad testimony to the mentality of anyone who tries to use that excuse for mass murder and all of the associated war crimes that accompany the illegal invasion and permanent occupation of another sovereign nation state.

Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike
CLINTON: Good evening.
Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.
Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.
Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.
I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.
Continued at the link

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/tran scripts/clinton.html

Then there’s THIS…kinda makes ya think this might all be a little bit of a partisan nature eh, with oh so many more dead people (them and us) this time around.
Republicans skeptical of Iraq attack on eve of impeachment vote
WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, December 16)—White House officials insist a looming impeachment vote in the House had no bearing on President Clinton’s decision to bomb Iraq—but planes were still in the air as a chorus of critics began voicing skepticism about the timing.
(links provided below)

In this story:
• House intelligence chair says not consulted
• Torricelli calls GOP criticism ‘unforgivable’
• Eagleburger: ‘Timing stinks’
• Impeachment debate delayed
• Rep. Solomon: Attack designed to create ‘leverage’

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/cong resstional.react.02/

Rus, Marshall, please help us understand how ANY of this changes the fact that GWB INTENTIONALLY lied to the American public, forged documents, (knowing full well that Saddam Hussein was NOT in possession of any nuclear OR biological weapons) in order to invade and occupy that nation in 2003.

Absolute rubbish, Marshall, and what’s worse is that you are well aware of it.  I have repeatedly quoted for you passages from books, you know those little printed things with pages that you probably seldom read.  I and other posters have repeatedly referred you to a variety of sources which have thoroughly debunked each and every effort you have made to defend the indefensible--the Bush regime’s willful prevarications in taking this nation to war. 

As to your pal, Rus, I feel as if I am attempting to reason with a three year old.  But perhaps I am missing something.  Perhaps he is this brilliant mind and I just don’t see it.

So perhaps you, Marshall, can help me out with what I see as gaping holes in Rus’s logic.

The topic of this article is that the White House fabricated intelligence.  The author making that accusation, Ron Suskind, has lengthy recorded interviews of individuals highly placed in our intelligence community which support that allegation, showing that the White House, operating through the Cheney/Rumsfeld office of special plans, forged a document in order to support Cheney’s fraudulent claim that there were links between al Qaeda & the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein.

So please answer for me two simple questions:

(1) How does quoting a statement made by this or that Democrat in 1998 to the effect that they then “believed” that Iraq possessed WMD refute the Suskind allegation?

(2) Better still, how does quoting statements made by anti-war activists in 1998 to the effect that Iraq was not a threat refute the Suskind allegation?

So be so kind as to fill in what I see as gaping holes in our Rus’ logic, since, to date, he hasn’t.

The interesting thing is that throughout this entire sordid affair--the 1998 statements made by students quoted by Rus, the position taken by the anti-war movement during history’s largest pre-war anti-war demonstrations carried out in multiple countries, and now, that Iraq did not possess WMD and was not a threat to the U.S.--the nation which spends more on weaponry than the rest of the world combined and possess the most powerful arsenal ever known to man, have proved to be smack dead on accurate while “every” claim advanced by three successive administrations to the contrary has proved to be dead wrong.

By cann4ing, August 9 at 7:45 pm #

I officially dub you a waste of my time.  You never support your claims with references, routinely present your opinion as fact, employ ad hominem (ad nauseum), ignore those who refute you with legitimate links, then dismiss entire fact-filled posts as “eroneous”.  This doesn’t amount to reasoned discussion or any display of critical thinking on your part, and personally I need that in a discussion.  Take care.

Rus, are you really that monumentally stupid?  Jack and I have just discussed the fact that “regime change” has often been the goal of U.S. imperialism dating back to the 1953 overthrow of the Mossadegh regime in Iran.  I have repeatedly stated that both the Bush I and Clinton administrations carried out that policy with respect to Iraq.  Their goals, like that of Bush II and the neocons, was regime change; access to oil.  They differed only in their methodology, with the Bush II administration being the only one to invest this nation’s most precious resource--the young people serving in the armed forces--some 4,100 of whom are now lying in their graves because the neocons you so admire, people who themselves had never been in combat--as I suspect you have not--lied. 

And there is not one word you have written that serves to absolve the Bush/Cheney regime of this monumental crime against this nation.  Not one!

The fact that you actually believe that by quoting the words of protesters in 1998 to the effect that Iraq was not a threat then somehow debunks the fact that Iraq was not a threat in 2003 when George W. Bush ordered our troops to invade suggests that more than a few of your brain’s synapses are disconnected.

Jack:  I nearly missed your post. It was buried between the tired rants of TD’s resident apologists for the fascist regime now occupying the White House. 

Of course, you are right.  Regime change has often been the goal of the U.S. imperial project--certainly was in the overthrow of the duly elected prime minister Mohammed Massadegh of Iran in 1953--a plot directly carried out by Kermit Roosevelt under the auspices of the CIA which led to the repressive regime of the Shah and his murderous SAVVAK.  The same could be said of our covert actions leading to the ouster of the democratically Jacobo Arbenz in Guatamala that same year leading to a serious of murderous fascist regimes, the CIA-led plot to overthrow the democratically elected president of Chile, Salvador Allende; the failed U.S. backed coup that sought to topple the government of President Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and innumerable other countries in between.

But the topic at hand was “regime change” in Iraq--specifically a plot to utilize brutal UN sanctions, covert activity and intermittent bombing in the so-called “no-fly” zone.  Contrary to the postings of the uninformed, whose erroneous rants are not worthy of a direct repost, was initiated during the administration of George H. W. Bush shortly after the Bush I regime decided against carrying Gulf War I into Baghdad.  It was a policy adopted by and pursued by the Clinton administration.

The basic difference between those two administrations and the current one is that only George W. Bush was willing to carry out the neocon plan to invade Iraq for the purpose of securing a permanent base of operations in the oil rich Middle East.  That makes for a qualitative difference in the methodology by which the American Empire sought to accomplish regime change in Iraq--which falls within the basic subject of the article to which all these comments are appended--the White House fabrication of intelligence in order to mask the true reasons why it wanted to invade.

By cann4ing, August 7 at 7:06 am #

“Oh, and just what were those “other considerations”?”

The ‘02 SOTU named three (regime change, establish first Democracy in ME, liberate Iraqi Shiites). Several others were mentioned at other times (allow U.S. to remove unwelcome forces from Saudi soil, end ongoing no-fly enforcement, end Saddam’s support for Palestinian terrorism).  Saddam was shooting at our planes routinely, had attacked several of our allies, and was the ME’s largest mass murderer and human rights abuser.  By themselves, these were not reasons to invade - but coupled with our intelligence community’s clear belief that Saddam had WMD, they were.  BTW - your repeating of the claim that Bush said Iraq was an imminent threat won’t make it true.

Three bi-partisan Congressional committees have found no evidence that Bush “knew every one of these claims was false when he made them”.  I’m sorry, but I trust them more than I do you.

“[the policy of “regime change”] was initiated by George H. W. Bush.  It continued unabated under Clinton.”

Incorrect.  That policy began with the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act

“Bush II willfully deceived Congress...”

Congress doesn’t think so, and has the reports to prove it (Silberman-Rob, SIC, 9/11 commission, as well as British Butler Report).

It’s worth noting, Canning, that everything in my post is documented and not simply a matter of my opinion.

Rus selective quote from Al Gore

• “Now I want to go further. I want to give robust support to the groups that are trying to overthrow Saddam Hussein.”

Rus, what don’t you understand about the difference between giving robust support to the groups –of IRAQIS – trying to overthrow Saddam, (having ZERO to do with WMD) and an invasion/occupation of that sovereign nation by another power, based on lies?

Are you aware Rus, that when Bush I invaded Iraq in the first Gulf War, he TOO encouraged the large Shiite population to rebel against Saddam. And when they did, our troops stood by and watched while Saddam slaughtered thousands of them. Again, that had ZERO to do with WMD.

Marshall states:

“The rational for removing Saddam, like any policy, was based on many considerations, primarily - but by no means completely - on the belief by our intelligence that he had WMD.”

Oh, and just what were those “other considerations”?

As Andy Card observed, the Bush regime rolled out its “product line"--WMD.  The President claimed that we had to invade because Iraq was an imminent threat to the security of the U.S.  He said that Iraq was linked to al Qaeda; stated this gave the “terrorists” access to WMD who could strike us “on any given day” and that we could no afford to allow the smoking gun to come in the form of a mushroom cloud.

The evidence that Bush knew every one of these claims was false when he made them is nothing short of compelling to any reasonable mind.  The fact that you stubborning refuse to acknowledge that basic fact reflects that yours is a mind that cannot be described as reasonable.

Also, I never said that Clinton “initiated” the policy of “regime change.” That policy was initiated by George H. W. Bush.  It continued unabated under Clinton.  The difference was that Pappy Bush & Clinton refused to listen to the neocons who wanted to invade Iraq, who were regarded by the Pappy Bush administration as “the crazies.” Their preferred methodology was U.N. sanctions coupled with weapons inspections, which they sought to pervert into a means of intelligence gathering on Saddam’s personal security, and periodic assaults by U.S./UK forces in the no-fly zones.

I am by no means an apologist for what Bush I & Clinton did.  Their policies caused the unnecessary deaths of more than 500,000 Iraqi children under the age of five.  But none of that has any bearing whatsoever on the question at hand--that Bush II willfully deceived Congress and the American people in order to initiate a war of aggression in Iraq.

By cann4ing, August 5 at 9:58 pm #

And again you cherry pick the data that supports you and ignore the rest (even when you’ve cited it in support of previous points). Habbush was one piece of intelligence among many, and the Oct. ‘02 NIE was clear, as were the numerous bipartisan commissions that have rehashed this ground repeatedly.  But none of that matters because you choose to place your entire confidence in a man that few of us knows squat about besides what Suskind claims in his book.

The rational for removing Saddam, like any policy, was based on many considerations, primarily - but by no means completely - on the belief by our intelligence that he had WMD.  Now my guess is that you’d be critical of the administration for relying too heavily on Curveball as a source, yet you have no problem saying he should have based his decision entirely on what Habbush allegedly said?  Can you say “disingenuous”?

And we already know Bush wanted to remove Saddam from early on.  You’ve acknowledged that Clinton instituted official U.S. policy of Regime Change.  There’s no question that Bush took a more aggressive posture on executing that policy after 9/11, so where’s the beef?

Suskind’s case is already beginning to crumble on its own with the defection by his two CIA sources, Richer and Maguire.  But linking his book with the quackery of Bugliosi only further weakens your argument.  I’d leave that guy out of your discussion if I were you.

By jack, August 6 at 8:19 am
(Unregistered commenter)

Cyrena, et al:  Why waste your time on Rus’ Left/Right red-herring bait?

Of course Pulosi lied - just like they all lie all the time - the Left/Right schism is pure distraction - just as in the coming election, there is no “choice” - even in 2000 there was no “choice” - the rogue network had 9/11 planned long before the election - the POTUS was a target as well - follow Angel is Next - Bush or Gore, same outcome - and they didn’t need Cheney to do 9/11- a bit player at best - it’s all directed from the shadows.
If you have a conscience you vote for Nader of Mckinney - there is no other “choice” -
- McCain promises a 100-year Global War Or Terror - Obama delivers the full-blown Brzezinski Doctrine - both in service to the New World Oligarchy and every new tension over anything in the Middle East, agitates the markets and drives up the price of oil - quarter after quartet of record profits - everyone sees a new energy paradigm on the horizon and the big players in this one are determined to squeeze every penny of profit out of it before it’s over - it’s all lies all the time...Rus is an agent on a mission to distract and waste your time...write him off now.
~~~~~~

Well Jack, we figured this out about Russ7355 a really long time ago. However, with all due (and mostly respectful) acknowledgment, you don’t really sound a whole lot different, but more like a competing disinformation agent. I would probably choose your “brand” over that of Rus, since his perfidy and deceit is overwhelmingly offensive to ALL, rather than a few. So yes, he is a waste, but actually more dangerous than a “simple’ waste. He’s a HAZARDOUS waste. And, hazardous waste must be properly disposed of, to prevent any continuing damage.

Now since you are unregistered and post under a fairly common name, we have no idea how you support your own brand. But, this notion of ‘voting one’s conscience’ by voting for an individual who has no chance of winning, doesn’t gain you many points in the reality of the day. It is also very disingenuous for you to claim that there is no real ‘choice’ in our elections, (because of the shady ‘new world order’ conspiracy) and then encourage us all to waste our votes on either Nadar or McKinney, knowing full well that neither one of them has a snowballs’ chance in hell, not only of WINNING, but of even beginning to actually do the job, if they DID.

That’s not to say that their ‘intentions’ aren’t basically good, or that their hearts aren’t in the right places, or even that Nadar could possibly accomplish something in the office, since he has managed to encourage certain measures of reform in the past. But, none of it was ever sustained, and he could never manage it now. As for Cynthia McKinney, while I can certainly appreciate some of her limited efforts as well, she has even LESS than a snowball’s chance of accomplishing anything at all. Hell, if you’re gonna vote for her, you might as well write *my* name it. As far as middle-aged American Women of Color are concerned, I could do a better job than Cynthia. And I say that with all due respect to her.

Besides that, if (as you say) we don’t have any real ‘choice’ anyway, why bother with either one of them? Meantime, I already well know the McSame Doctrine, and I’m not buying that Barack Obama will simply incorporate the Brzezinski doctrine in whole or even part. In fact, he’s already demonstrated that he has his own mind, and can extract the best of all strategies with pragmatism to achieve the best possible outcome based on the realities of the times and circumstances.

So, I’m anti-ideologue, and very pro-sanity. You sound at least like you might be a twig on the branch of Max Shields, and as much an agent of distraction as Rus.

go to pbs.com & check out Bill Moyers Journal Capital Crimes for an in depth visual that leaves no doubt as to the cesspool bottom of the ocean slime balls that run this country; then the author mentioned & other people with more power or clout than a 58 year old disabled woman on limited means needs to take charges & file them with the World Court & International Crimes AGAINST the leaders of this country including all the Gov’s in each state; when other countries are talking genocide, Hitler how he did it & how it is being done today in the USA SOMEONE needs to do this pronto; KNOW: that this regime ignores both the World Court & the International Crimes Court: because both Bush & Dick have been indicted for war crimes re torture tactics and when they joke on public tv re “water boarding” know for a fact that there is documented facts showing far worse atrocities than these; in Oregon most of the St Congress is lined up with these folks; & need thouroughly investigated as well; Lou Dobbs by the way is also running for Pres & his book “War on the American Dream”; shows EXACTLY how & what is being done in the USA by our own Gov & Special interest groups, etc, working AGAISNT the people of this country; if you think there MIGHT be a war, you have been in the midst of one without even KNOWING it, some of you; WAKE UP AMERICANS! the Pentagon has been waging psychological & mental & emotional & financial war on it’s own citizens right along with the current regime. It is illegal folks; lets DO SOMETHING to fix our country before it is to late; DEMOCRACY means “the WILL OF THE PEOPLE” not the “will of a few wealthy, & Corp’s etc;” this has NOT been done & carried out since WW1;

RE: By cann4ing, August 6 at 8:10 am #

You are right! I tried too, but he/she/it just wonders all over the spectrum. I hope others will take our que and disregard whatever IT is.

You’re right VietnamVet.  It is pointless to attempt any level of intellectual discourse with a guy with the brains of a turnip.  I thought it possible to point out the gaping holes in his reasoning, but his last post demonstrates that I had engaged in an exercise in futility.

For Christ’s sake, why don’t you folks stop responding to this nut Rus7355. You can’t win with folks like this and I, for one, am tired of keying on to this issue and seeing nothing but Rus, Rus, Rus. The man ain’t all there, so PLEASE stop responding.

No, Rus, don’t direct anything to me, because you sure as hell won’t get a response!

Rus.  Logic isn’t your strong suit, is it? 

(1) There are a number of Dems who either lied or were misled into believing that Saddam had WMD.  There was only one man who, in his capacity of commander in chief, ordered our troops to invade knowing full well that Iraq had no WMD, was not a threat to the U.S. and had no links to al Qaeda.  His name is George W. Bush.

As I long ago pointed out in response to another of your idiotic pieces, you remind me of a little boy who gets caught cheating on an exam and says, “well, Billy did it too,” as if that somehow makes cheating any less reprehensible.

(2) Quoting statements made by various Democrats (or Republicans or Independents) made back in 1998 to the effect that the “believed” Iraq possessed WMD is meaningless unless you can also point to the information they were fed that caused them to make the statement.  Unless you can show, as Bugliosi and Suskind have done with respect to Bush/Cheney, that these individuals had been directly told by our intelligence agencies (or UNSCOM or the IAEA) that there were no WMD and that they went on to claim the opposite, you do not present evidence of willful prevarication.  Indeed, the very statements you produce may establish no more than that the individuals you quote are themselves the victims of deception.

(3) Nancy “the-constitution-is-off-the-table” Pelosi is the last person in the world I would want to defend.  She’s got her head so far up the President’s behind I don’t know where he ends and she begins.  But you have to do more than quote her 1998 claim that Saddam had WMD.  Come up with evidence that she had seen intel demonstrating otherwise, yet went ahead with her claim.  If you can do that, she too should be impeached.

The point here ought to be that no one will EVER admit we went there for the oil because to do so would mean we also have to admit to coveting, lying, murdering, and stealing.

The Suskind book would be a far better one if it forced the reader to acknowledge the real reasons for our occupation of Iraq instead of rehashing all the lies, which when all is said and done are only lies and have nothing to do with the truth beyond attempts to cover it up.

By Rus7355, August 5 at 3:12 pm

• “Did Hussein re-constitute this program during the Clinton Administration? That question is in great dispute. But I can show that President Clinton made that very claim numerous times. So too did his Sec. of Defense, his Sec. of State and his National Security Advisor. Not a “Neo-Con” in the lot.”
~~~~

Rus, I never heard Clinton makes such claims, but I won’t dispute what you say here, just because I haven’t tried to check it out. If he did, (and he may have) such numerous claims should be easy enough to find.

Be that as it may, I think we need to be really careful about who we ‘lable’ as neo-cons, and I think we have to be even more careful about the assertions that only ‘neo-cons’ have been involved in so many Crimes of the State. The fact of the matter is that the biggest culprit of the last decade, (who has honed his skills for decades prior) is Richard B. Cheney. He is NOT a ‘neo-con’ in the accepted sense of the ‘neo-cons’ that most refer to, as represented by the likes of Richard Perle, Wolfowitz, Elliot Abrams, and of course I could go on. David Addington, (the chief of staff to Dick Cheney who is basically running the country in terms of all the laws that have shredded the Constitution as we once knew it) is not a neo-con either. Neither is Donald Rumsfeld. All of these people are as responsible for the destruction as are the so-called ‘neo-cons’.

Now I don’t believe that ANYONE has ever suggested that Bill Clinton was ‘innocent’ (because he certainly created his own destruction) and Madeline Albright at least, is as much a hawk as any republican, neo-con or not. (This is what concerns me about her alleged inclusion now, in the Obama advisory team.) Madeline Albright ALSO happens to be (and I only discovered this recently) one of the many sub (and later added) signatories to the PNAC papers. (I was actually shocked to discover that).

So, while many of these people may not fall into the barrel of ‘neo-cons’, that doesn’t mean they don’t share many of the same imperialistic mentalities, and Madeline was certainly among them. In fact, Madeline is the one who felt that the extremely onerous sanctions against Saddam Hussein that killed millions of Iraqi children were ‘worth it’. So I’m hoping you can find a way to drop the labels and the ‘party’ affiliations, and start looking at * individuals* instead. Insofar as the ‘neo-cons’ are concerned, it might be reasonable to say that they certainly have high-jacked the republican party, but they didn’t get every single one of them, since people like Chuck Hagel continue to exist, and he has long been a republican, and an honest broker politician. For the same reason, we cannot afford to ‘link’ Barack Obama with the DLC of old, represented by the likes of the Clintons and people like Madeline Albright.

That said, I still find it pretty impossible for anyone to believe that Saddam Hussein had ever reconstituted his nuclear program. The Gulf war waged by Bush I, the two wars with Iran spanning 8 years, and the 12 years worth of sanctions should be a clue to anybody that Saddam did not have the ways or means to mess with any nuclear programs, not to mention that the US and the international community were all over him, the entire time. Some of that common sense, combined with the fact that ALL other reliable sources, INCLUING the international community as represented by Hans Blix and the rest of the IAEA made it overwhelmingly clear, PRIOR to the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq, that Saddam DID NOT have anything close to these WMD or a re-energized program, and Dick Bush knew it.

The invasion and permanent occupation of Iraq was planned long before George Bush took office. If he didn’t have that in his own addled mind long before, you can rest assured that all of his puppet masters did.

It’s all right there in the PNAC documentation.

Marshall your effort to continue to defend the dissembler-in-chief is exceedingly feeble, at best, though more likely a reflection of intellectual dishonesty on your part.  It is one thing to say that Bush did not believe Saddam when he said that Iraq had no WMD but that has no application here.  Mr. Habbush was indeed Saddam’s Chief of Intelligence, but the CIA had turned him.  He was funneling info to our intelligence agencies about a host of Iraqi secrets but when questioned by British intelligence, Habbush told them, truthfully, that Iraq had no WMD.

Suskind has lengthy tapes of his interviews with the CIA officers.  They said that Bush wanted to go to war with Iraq almost from the moment he was sworn in as President; that when George Tenet was informed of this, he said “they’re not going to like this downtown” (meaning the WH); that when Bush was told of Habbash’s revelation there were no WMD, he grew perturbed, stating, “Why don’t they give us something we can use to make our case?”

http://www.msmbc.msm.com/id/3036677#26045433

This account ties in with the massive evidence of deliberate deception documented by Vince Bugliosi in “The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder,” which including the Manning memo which exposed a Jan. 2003 WH meeting where Bush, concerned that the inspectors would blow the WMD smokescreen, advocated flying US/UK aircraft over Baghdad painted in UN colors in the hopes that he could provoke the Iraqis in firing on them, providing an excuse for the invasion.  It ties in with Bush’s ordering the inspectors to leave at a time when they had been given full and unfettered access to all sites and Hans Blix had stated that full confirmation that Iraq had disarmed, yet Bush ordered the invasion and then had the temerity to claim he did so “reluctantly.”

Give it up Marshall.  You can’t polish a turd.

Nancy “the-constitution-is-off-the-table” Pelosi appeared on Oprah and, remarkably, claimed the reason impeachment was off the table was because she has not seen any evidence of a crime.  Suskind’s book contains a smoking gun equal to the Nixon tapes.  But I doubt it will make any difference to Pelosi, for her true motives are purely political.  She believes Dems will fare better if Bush & Cheney remain in office--the solemn oath that she took to support the constitution and laws of the United States be damned.

Okay! Another supposedly new revelation that I knew intuitively a long time ago!

For George Tenet to deny that the CIA was ordered to manipulate the information is indeed another outrageous crime added to the record of this evil entity, as if he is telling us that the CIA is a totally independent governmental agency that does not take its orders from the Devil-in-Chief.

We know from many facts of history that the CIA is the most evil instrument of plotting in the service of whoever is the Commanders-in-Chief!

George Tenet is one of the criminal gang who is adding insult to injury by treating us as if we were all sheep, of which none will remember the evil plotting they have done in Cuba and Iran, just to mention two of the most known episodes!

So Mr. Suskind - where’s the letter?

Allowing the U.N. weapons inspectors to finish their job in Iraq would have been a lose-lose situation for Bush.  If weapons were found, they could then be destroyed.  If weapons were not found, there was no problem.  Either way, Bush would lose his reason for war.  So Bush forced the inspectors out by saying he was going to attack before they were finished.

Impeachment. I like that word.

Yes both Clinton & Bush lied agout Iraq’s weapons.  When Saddam lost US support he could not continue with his weapons programs because the US & UK were the suppliers.  He then wiped out his stockpiles in 1992.  This was known here because General Huusein Kamel, chief of Iraq’s weapons procurment process defected in 1995 and revealed Saddam’s secrets to Western intelligence. 

So it has been known since 1995 that Saddam had destroyed what weapons he had.

As for Zarqwari, yes he was in Iraq, Kurdish Iraq, the section of Iraq that was pretty much under US control since 1991.  If he were such a threat, the US could have taken him out any time thereafter.  They did not, but they did exploit his propaganda value to the max.

RE: Rus7355

In all your posts, you have not provided one iota of EVIDENCE. Look up the definition; your comments do not fit.

No more from me on this, my friend. You cannot argue with someone who THINKS they have the EVIDENCE but refuses to provide it! Please post again when you provide it to an Agency that can evaluate it and validate your “claim”; THEN you will have something to crow about. Until then, take care, and adios.

So what the lies??!! Everyone that can cruise the internet could know that. The point is, what is going to be done about it? Most likely, absolutely nothing.
The one person that has done something directly related to the lies of going to war is Vincent Bugliosi. He went so far as to write his just published book about the prosecution of george w. bush for murder and it is about the lies to invade Iraq, which has been reported that this was planned back in the 1990s when the neocons were going to get conservative control of congress and the white house.
The other part about us the people knowing about the lies, well, yeah, those of us who can access the internet know, those that get foreign newspapers know and those that read books know. Who doesn’t know are the poor idiots addicted to the msm for mostly empty entertainment and what information they get that they approve of, rendering them basically clueless.
Do these people need to know, I say YES, but until the conservative monopoly on the msm is broken, they will not know. Break that up and maybe in some round about way something will get done about what this administration has lied about and be held accountable, like in courts of law with real penalties for criminal actions.
Otherwise just stuff all your mysterious reams of papers and evidence where the sun ain’t gonna shine because that is no help to no one.

Quote :Actually they are linked - both run by the CIA at different times in their careers - both filling specific roles as long as they’re useful.

BRAVO JACK ! You said it all .

Rus7355

This is for you

http://www.bushflash.com/swf/thanks.swf

http://www.representativepress.org/CIASaddam.html

ALL i had to do was Google. took me one minute .plenty more of that where that came from.

our country brought over top Nazi’s after WW11 to study them (setting them up handsomely) for 1 purpose only: how they did it; their main concern was how they were able to do it in such a way that the people who were many did not simply overpower the few in power; they actually laughed saying they had done such a good job with propaganda that the people went willingly into the ovens THINKING wrongfully that their country was looking after their best interests; nothing does our country look after the best interests of the people of this nation; we are the WORST nation in the world in many respects; the blurb “china blocks tv coverage” is the same in FDA refusing to allow the TRUTH to be seen, & heard in the media; thru intimidation etc; the people of this country as seen as being enslaved and we are; you think products from China are bad? the ones in your own home make them seen like halos’ all courtesy of our deceitful & deliberately misleading Gov, both parties, & the FDA; the people are wrongfully taxed & wrongfully overbilled on multiple items; Proof; the man says; well, there is a “signed” Colombia trade agreement not signed until this year showing a date of 2006; and a convenient memo dating 2002 saying torture any & all is ok; these are FALSE documents not only from Bush etc but both parties are in on it; Bush Sr tried to get NAU & NAFTA thru; Clinton did it; both reps & dems are corrupt to the core; & the “truth is relavtive” came out when top Clinton person rebuked FBI agent for telling the truth under oath; “truth is relative” he said; TRUTH is it is TIME this corrupt Gov system was put to rest; from Governors on up; no one has abused & harmed it’s citizens more ever than the USA has; they even STATE to other countries “we have gotten away with it in the USA for years now”; when bribing them to go along with their acts in their countries; telling them how they are the “political powerful elites” and no one can prosecute them for any wrong doing at all; they are EXEMPT from the laws; & they have been operating lawlessly for years now; while claiming to be “a nation of laws”;

By Rus7355, August 5 at 3:24 pm #
Jim C and VietnamVet

Your main problem Rus, is no one nor agency of credence supports your points. Again, if you have EVIDENCE, caugh it up to those that can act on it. You canot win an argument simply by restating unfounded claims!

I have not read anything that indicates President Clinton agreed that Al Qaeda was in Iraq. Do you have a source?

I do not have access to the intelligence reports of Saudi, Egyptian, Jordanian and Turkey. How did you get access? Ahhhhh, the Bush administration said so, eh?

No one is asking you to ignore information for a “political purpose.” However, the only sources I have read or heard that claim Al Qaeda was in Iraq or supported by Saddam Hussain were those trying to justify Bush’s claim! That is, in my opinion, far from a credible source. I lean towards those who analyzed the evidence and provided an opinion FREE of political influence. The congress that provided the cited source in my link was controlled by the Republicans, and the Pentagon is hardly a political entity. Finally, Rus, don’t hold your breath while you wait for someone to “ask you for your evidence.”