Dennis Moss: Agreed! Thank you.

Rus7355

Answer 1:
Once again (the third time, I believe) stating a leader represents a “clearest of a threat facing the world” does NOT translate into the U.S invasion of Iraq.

Answer 2: Nor, did the “Iraq Liberation Act” translate into Clinton’s push for an invasion of Iraq.

Here’s what Clinton SAID:
“Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the ‘Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.’ This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers. On October 21, 1998, I signed into law the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999, which made $8 million available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition. My Administration, as required by that statue, has also begun to implement a program to compile information regarding allegations of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes by Iraq’s current leaders as a step towards bringing to justice those directly responsible for such acts.”

Read it a few more times.
Read it again.
Read it once more.

Now point to the part where he authorized - or even suggested - a U.S. Military Invasion of Iraq.

AND ONCE AGAIN, ask him today if he thinks the invasion of Iraq was the right thing to do. He has repeatedly said, “NO.” Then ask Bush the same question. He has repeatedly said, “YES.”

Enough.

BruSays,

You’re not following the thread. The course of the conversation.

Am I correct that you believe Hussein was just another bad man? One of several? Therefor you believe removing Hussein was an “embarrassing screw up in our response to Iraq in particular, and the Mid-East crisis in general”. I believe I understand you correctly.

I was only trying to point out where and why we fundamentally disagree. And yes, I do very firmly believe the historical facts bear out my beliefs. I believe there was no more dangerous threat facing the United States, the Middle East region and the world in general than Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. And if you follow with honesty what we had been told previous to the evil Bush administration you will better understand how I arrived there.

Let me ask you two questions. And, please, can you disassociate how you feel about President Bush for just these two questions? Why did President Clinton attempt to explain to the world that Hussein was, in his assessment, the “clearest example of a threat facing the world?

Second question. Why did the President of the United States, William Clinton, sign the Iraq Liberation Act that mandated the removal of Saddam Hussein from power three years before George Bush took office?

Forget about Bush for five minutes.

I will give you my answers. It’s due to the conclusions reached by President Clinton while he was in office. In 1998 he was very explicit about how and why he came to his conclusions. The previous president’s actions, the signed order to have Hussein removed from power, made President Clinton’s intentions clear. In fact as clear as his words.

“The reckless acts of outlaw nations and an unholy ‘axis of terrorists’, drug traffickers and organized international criminals’—‘There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein’s Iraq’”.-- President Clinton February 17, 1998

There is a context here that is beyond dispute. It’s a context that is missing in today’s debates but will not be missed by historians. In 1998 the President of the United States signed a law, which was passed in the Senate unanimously and 500+ in the House, that determined Saddam Hussein to be a direct threat to the United States and needed to be removed. That same mandate, the Iraq Liberation Act, called for a democracy to be put in Hussein’s stead.

This is why I make the claim that the historical facts bear me out. Saddam was not, according to the Congress and the President of the United States in 1998 (three years before Bush took office), just “another bad man” in the world. He had already displayed himself to be one of the worst. He was, according to the assessments of three U.S. Presidents, a direct threat.

Rus7355,

Where in the world are the historical facts that bear you out? Au contraire, the historical facts have revealed - and continue to reveal - an embarrassing screw up in our response to Iraq in particular, and the Mid-East crisis in general.

And what’s with this “three presidents from two parties for over twelve years” fixation? ONE president from ONE party orchestrated an invasion of Iraq which an overwhelming number of Americans (and finally, a majority of Republicans) now agree was a big, fat, MISTAKE. Bush Sr. didn’t take out Hussein or invade Baghdad, and Clinton never moved beyond your famous quote. 

Heck, George Washington himself could’ve risen from the grave and pushed for the Iraq invasion and it would not have made it less a mistake. 

Wrong War. Wrong Country.

BruSays,

Points one through six I categorically reject. The point we disagree on is the severity of the threat from Hussein’s Iraq. You believe he was just another bad man. I do not. And the historical facts bear me out.

“The reckless acts of outlaw nations and an unholy ‘axis of terrorists’, drug traffickers and organized international criminals’—‘There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein’s Iraq’”.-- President Clinton February 17, 1998

It’s impossible to claim that President Clinton warned us about Iraq becuase a handful evil neo-cons convinced him of it five years in the future. It’s impossible. There must be another explanation, ya think? Or will you hang on to the idea that Bush lied and Clinton told the truth? How does anyone justify the obvious dichotomy in that?

Three presidents from two parties for over twelve years, you believe, were merely blowing in the political wind? I suppose that could be true. But three U.S. president saying all the same things? For over a decade? It seems much more likely you were just not paying attention at the time.

To JBlack, Rus7355 and others who just won’t give it up…

Point One:
If you believe that the invasion of Iraq was a tactical, necessary, self-defense move, then you better suit up - you’ll be a busy soldier fighting in Sudan, Myanmar, North Korea, Pakistan, Zimbabwe, Cuba, Syria, Ethiopia, Iran...each a hot spot. Starvation, mass murders, genetic cleansings, kidnappings, and rapes are everyday occurrences throughout the world, to say nothing of nations known to harbor Al Qaeda supporters. If you’re not ready to invade these nations, you’re a hypocrite.

Point Two:
There is a HUGE difference between recognizing the potential threat of a nation whose intentions are feared and marching our army into that nation. No one has ever suggested Iraq is impotent or to be ignored.

Point Three: 
Your cherry-picked quotes from Democrats were largely responses to what we now know was manufactured and manipulated intelligence. I don’t doubt that there were those who made their comments based on the direction the patriotic winds (and their electorates) were blowing at the time. But NONE of them maintained those views and most have publicly retracted or regretted those statements. In fact, most on the Republican side have similarly retracted or regretted their earlier statements. Why won’t you? Throwing up old (and now retracted) quotes hardly supports your view - it just spotlights their one-time errors in judgement...and your continued errors in judgement. Heck, those old comments now actually underscore the wise perceptions of Kucinich and Obama.

Point Four:
Almost seven years after 9/11 and Al Qaeda is as strong as ever. And where is Osama bin Laden? HE’S the one who took credit for the events of 9/11 and he’s still at large. (Maybe we’ve been fighting this wrong? Ya think?)

Point Five:
The “reason” for this war appears as elusive as Osama. First, it was to locate and destroy Hussein’s WMD. Ooops...none existed. So it became a crusade to establish a democracy in Iraq. Ooops...a year after the surge and we’re still no closer to seeing that than we were in 2003. (Fact is, we’ve helped convert a secular nation into a Koran-thumping theocracy.)

Point Six:
If ever the real reason was to oust Hussein, then Mission Accomplished. We should’ve gotten out years ago because today, every, Every, EVERY poll Iraqi poll confirms that they want us the hell out.

By paul easton wrote, June 17 at 12:27 pm #

“........... STEALTH ATTACKS

I think the remarks by ‘JBlack’ are USGovernment jamming. “

I don’t doubt it.  Psyops are a huge part of that parasite Pentagon government that can “lose” tillions of dollars with impunity.  I despise these whores and hope to live to spit on their graves.

Paul easton,

“ Bush Cheney planned and carried out the destruction of the World Trade Center. Give Bush Cheney a fair trial and hang them from the nearest tree.

Thats what we need to talk about”.

You see I think people should be exposed to the facts.

President George H.W. Bush talked to the world about three main threats. President William Jefferson Clinton told us about three main threats. And, President George W. Bush talked to the world about three main threats.

Three U.S. Presidents, from two opposing parties, spanning a course of twelve (12) years, told the world that Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden and Kim Jung Il posed an immediate threat to the United States and to the world. That is undisputed. I think that by missing this single universal point everything one may be thinking about Iraq, 9/11, Kim Jung Il or Iran then we are taking every current event out of all context.

What had we been told?

“The reckless acts of outlaw nations and an unholy ‘axis of terrorists’, drug traffickers and organized international criminals.’ ‘These predators of the twenty-first century, these ‘enemies of America’, will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. ‘There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein’s Iraq’”.-- President Clinton February 17, 1998

That was 1998. That was President Bill Clinton’s warnings specifically and explicitly about Iraq, Iran and Osama bin Laden. And on Sept. 11 2001 many people woke up to what we had all been told over a decade.

Make these events all about the evil Bush cabal and you’ve missed the point. You’ve missed the very context of the issue. Without it one will never understand why the world is at war.

I wrote: “Over the last several years, he has published extensive evidence of this”

The pronoun “he” refers to Porter, not Cheney!

Regarding ‘By felicity, June 17 at 12:15 pm’ —

Felicity writes:

“What if the Bush crime syndicate decides to attack Iran between now and November”

Felicity, there is a great danger of this happening before Bush leaves office, whether before or after the elections.

Historian and investigative reporter Gareth Porter (who writes for UPI, Salon.com, the Huffington Post, the American Prospect, etc.) says that the remaining 6 months of the Bush administration are an extremely dangerous time, because these threats against Iran are in dead earnest. In fact, he believes that Cheney is essentially deranged and doesn’t care about anything but showing the world “who’s boss” by doing grievous harm to Iran, damn the consequences for the rest of us.

Over the last several years, he has published extensive evidence of this. Now he is saying there is fresh reason to be alarmed, as a named former administration insider has recently openly confirmed, on the record, that these threats are not mere bluster (or psy-ops) at all.

They’re not just trying to psche out the Iranians. They really are determined to do this.

Here is a link to Scott Horton’s recent interview with Porter. Please listen to this, Felicity; it is well worth your time:

http://antiwar.com/radio/2008/06/16/gareth-porter-29/

I got this from my latest Harpers.  What if the Bush crime syndicate decides to attack Iran between now and November - not off the wall.  He can’t do it without the military but the military says no, Mr. President, not this time and goes “over the head of the president for congressional and popular support.” (Sort of a version of a Gaullist coup.)

The inside the Beltway bunch’s (Congress, big media, the Executive, lobbiests reached the level of statuatory crime long ago.  We’ve merely been a little slow on the uptake.

Tomack, No don’t waste your time listening to any point of view that differs from those here on TD. Don’t waste your time living in a democracy. Is that what you mean to say?

Don Stivers, why no pictures of the almost five hundred thousand people found in mass graves in Iraq? Why no pictures of the of the million children who died as a result of starvation and illness in Iraq due to Hussein’s arrogance and hubris? Why no pictures of the rape rooms? Why no pictures of the political prisoners thrown off buildings? Why not describe the entire picture and not simply one side?

You say: “ Self defense is when imminent danger presents itself.” You’re right. 100% right. And we had been warned repeatedy.

“Saddam Hussein’s Iraq reminds us of what we learned in the 20th century and warns us of what we must know about the 21st. In this century, we learned through harsh experience that the only answer to aggression and illegal behavior is firmness, determination, and when necessary action.” President Bill Clinton Feb. 1998

“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” --Former Vice President Al Gore, in Speech to San Francisco Commonwealth Club, September 23, 2002:

“No one disputes that America has lasting and important interests in the Persian Gulf, or that Iraq poses a significant challenge to U.S. interests. There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein’s regime is a serious danger.” --Senator Edward M. Kennedy (MA), Remarks to Senate, September 27, 2002:

“In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change...In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001."-- Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, in a Speech to Congress Oct. 2002

Why, Don were you not, and why not, even now, pay attention?

Paul easton, you should visit some other Web sites. You should listen and add your own point of view. You should talk to people in places you don’t always see eye to eye with. Practice democracy and broaden your, and others, scope. It’s not “USGovernment jamming”. It’s not yet ANOTHER wild eyed conspiracy, Paul. It’s only freedom and democracy.

That old “flying fuck” Daniel Schorr made a tiny peep about DK’s five-hour reading of the articles of impeachment on the House floor, suggesting that he did it for fun.  This is the same Schorr who has made a career of obfuscating the real stories behind the assassinations of MLK, JFK and RFK.  This is the flying fuck that many liberals revere as a true voice of liberal conscience.  Yeah, right.

Don’t waste your time on jblack, it’s a dodge, a scam, or as they say now, a punk. Those people are all over the various sites, and they are increasing--which makes me very happy because it shows signs of desperation.

Thanks Gore Vidal, I will try the French paper to read about this and the BBC. And yes sireee bob, you will NOT see this on american msm and it will not get past the protectors in the senate before w & dick waltz out the door if they don’t attempt to stay in power. About the only good thing it will do is that by election time it should give a clear idea as to who the people may want to vote out of the house and senate for obstruction of justice. There lies the major vector. Those lousey congresspersons, both house and senate, that need turning out. Their incumbency has turned to traitorous position for their personal, financial and political gain, which in short is the easiest way to become filthy rich in this country and lord over the people like some benevolent benefactor.

Mike Gravel is formimg a 9/11 truth commission in New York.  http://www.democracynow.org

To Alejandro:  You may be interested in The Real News, a non-profit news network which operates on donations only.  They take no corporate or advertising dollars, and accept no government grants.

The same week Kucinich called for impeachment (http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content& task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=1674), the group Veterans for Peace planned a sit-in with a petition for impeachment in Congressman Conyers’ office. The petition had over 22,000 signatures. Congressman Conyers agreed to meet with them and avoided the sit-in, however he said he’s not yet certain how he will proceed with the impeachment articles that had been referred to his committee. He set to meet with them next month.

Michael Ferner of VfP said:
Veterans for Peace is for impeachment, because we have sworn to defend from all enemies, foreign and domestic, a constitution that declares in the very first line that we the people are the source of all political power and authority in this nation, not a tyranny of corporate chieftains and their subordinates in government. Veterans For Peace is for impeachment because it breaks our hearts to know how many innocent families here and in Iraq have suffered when an insulated, criminal administration of privileged elites violates US law, such as the War Crimes Act of 1996, and legally binding international standards, such as the Geneva Conventions, UN Charter, and the Nuremberg Principles. Veterans For Peace is for impeachment because it is the law.

It’s all here: http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content& task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=1676

Go look at these pictures (two) of them and then ask yourself, “Was operation Iraqi Freedom worth it for this girl?” Look into her eyes and her wounds.  The wounds were most likely fatal.

I will have NO part of this war.  For a vague sense of security, we have harmed many.  And Bush gave the command to initiate “Shock and Awe”.

http://www.robert-fisk.com/030401AlKindi5.jpg
http://www.robert-fisk.com/030401AlKindi6.jpg

It was OUR bombs that destroyed this girl.

So I repeat:

Bush Cheney planned and carried out the destruction of the World Trade Center. Give Bush Cheney a fair trial and hang them from the nearest tree.

Thats what we need to talk about.

To JBlack:

Bush was asked outright if Iraq had anything to do with 9-11.  He responded with a frustrated “NO!” No WMD’s were found this country.  No ships, filled with troops, were heading to the United States.  Iraq’s troops were not lined up on the Mexican or Canadian borders.  The war of occupation is not about self defense. It is about Bush’s ego to make up for his Viet Nam days when he went AWOL and strutted around Harvard with his flight jacket on and was totally for the Viet Nam War but did not put his life on the line.  Google up his Harvard professor’s letter to the general public about 2 kinds of students you never forget!  It is not self defense.  Iraq was a much more powerful state before the first Gulf War.  Not this time around.

Also, think about what YOU would do as a Patriot if a foreign power were on our soil.  Might not you crawl around on your stomach and pick off foreign soldiers.  They would be innocent soldiers doing the bidding of an evil leader but, too bad, you’re going to pull the trigger to make for one less soldier to barge your door down and shove your wife to the floor looking for weapons (guns) that our own Constitution allows.

Self defense is when imminent danger presents itself.  The U.S. was attacked by a small band of guys, mostly from Saudi Arabia who did not like the Military presence in their country.  16 men with box cutters.  And Bush while in Texas had a memo saying that Bin Ladin was going to use planes as missiles and he and Condolizza did nothing to tighten up airport security.  The rest is history.  Iraq was not involved in 9-11 and as I said earlier, George Bush even said so.

........... STEALTH ATTACKS

I think the remarks by ‘JBlack’ are USGovernment jamming.

I’m sure there are still some people around who accept the official line, which ‘JBlack’ faithfully reiterates. But what would such a person be doing here? I certainly wouldn’t go to a Republican thread and try to convince them of anything. If ‘JBlack’ can write in proper English heshe is certainly aware of the futility of hoping to impress anyone here.

So what is the purpose of the purported ‘JBlack’ if not to convince us? It is to divert us. To divert us from saying anything new, but rather to draw us back into beating a dead horse. Instead of saying anything useful, like discussion of Bush Cheneys management of the destruction of the World Trade Center.

And I suspect that ‘Purple Girl’ is a government front as well. She provides a very convenient foil for ‘JBlack’ so heshe does not have to address hisherself to the content of my remarks.

If the USGovernment thinks enough of Vidal to subject him to ‘shock and awe’ cyberwarfare, we would surely expect it to indulge in isolated stealth attacks as well.

Purple Girl, you say; “We are all aware that the War in iraq was a sham, and we all want out. We all know Our economy is in the Gutter, at the hands for Profiteers”

When people say “we all know” to anything you can be sure that person is only paying attention to their own point of view.

The war in Iraq is not a sham. It’s called self defense. And so far it’s been tremendously successful. Saddam is gone and a representative government is in his place. Al Qaeda in Iraq, where Bin Laden claims the fight against the West is taking place, is loosing it’s grip. SUCCESS!

We are all aware taht th eWar in iraq was a sham, and we all want out.We all know Our economy is in the Gutter, at the hands for Profiteers.e Know all our rights ahve been Usurped. We must then deduct that the most important issue that must be resolved is to hold those Accountable who are guilty of this Over Throw.
Hold these two and All their minions personally Ciminally liable and much of the Problems facing Our country will be resolved.
Failure to do so only enocourages such crimes to continue,allowing the abuse and enslavement of our descendants to proliferate.BusH/Cheney et al are mere High positioned players not the source of this Agenda. Once they are out of Office, anothe rwill take their place- Mac and Hillary are both Co- Conspirators with this Undermining of American Democracy (Hillary tipped her hand with ‘Obliterate Iran’ RFK style assasination Request and her using the Womens movement for her own gains, right out of th eNoeCon handbook)
So if we do nothing to demand jsutice from these Enemies of the US, then others will consider that a Free Pass.This Agenda has bee perpetuated for Decades- Cheney Rummy & wolfie have been the Grand masters but are not the memebers of the Organized syndicate. We must strike at the heart of the Beast by removing it’s head Masters.this will send a clear messege to not only the others in their ranks -but to the World we will not fall under a Imperial dictatorship of Any sort.And those who Try will be held for Highest of Crimes with the Highest of Punishment aloowed by law.
I fear for Sen Obama’s safety, the evil that lurks in th ehearts of men who hide amongst the Shadows are still prevelant. I appreciated his one time comment about seeking investigation against this Admin when he takes office. My concern is that too much discussion on his part will only place him in further danger. I would appreciate and understand if he or his campaign did come out to at least commend Rep Kucinich for his Valor and Patriotism. But i would prefer we handle this Abuse of Power Before he takes office.Any other Democrat who has proven their allegeince to this Admin and it’s Accomplices have already revealed themselves and should face charges of complicity. Deciding to do Nothing is A Decision, a confession of collusion. The Dems who have failed to exercise their Responsilbiities to Protect & defend the Constittuion and the Citizens from Domestic Enemies will find they wil not be granted a ‘Free pass’ from US jsut becasue Sen Obama wins in Nov.first to be convicted on the ‘blue Side’ Pelosi & Reid. I intend to vote agaisnt any incumbnat from my state which has been Derelcit in their Duty or ahs proven their Complicity.for those who are not up for Reelection, Recalls. Indictment to be Issued for their cooperation in these High Crimes.
Th eonly ones who would be given any credence or shown mercy are those who come forward now to honor their Oath and provide Documented evidnece to push forth these Charges against this adminsitration.Col/Sec of State Powell who Do You Serve?

Here is a very condensed version of my last comment which was perhaps too long.

Bush and Cheney planned and carried out the destruction of the World Trade center, in which thousands of Americans died. Now they want us to know they will do the same to us if we get out of line.

If we want to survive we’d better do it to them first. By legal means of course. Give them a fair trial and hang them from the nearest tree. Then we can begin to feel secure. But not before then.

well gore i see your impeachment column has been chosen for cyberwarefare by whoever is doing cointelpro these days. considering how much chaff there is in the blogosphere i think it has been happening all along, but this is the first ‘shock and awe’ attack that i know of, where the overkill is so immense that it obviously is meant to send a message. i made the mistake of leaving the box checked to be notified of additions to the thread and i figure there were over 700 submissions to the thread, most of them apparantly many hundreds of words long, and containing a level of drivel that would be quite unremarkable here if not for its massive overkill.

lets see by the way whether the present thread gets the same treatment.

so what is the message that they intend to send? i guess it is simply dont talk about impeachment if you know what is good for you. if you think this is bad you had better think again. you could get fired from your job or even wind up with bullets in your body like Malcolm and Martin and Bobby. (And John of course but in that case i see little to mourn. he could have been worse of course but you could say that of almost anybody. apparently it was Bobby who was behind his better moments.)

so i hope all the major players are taking the necessary defensive measures. i’m sure that kucinich has some good security if he has survived this long. although they did get his brother of course.

we should expect the worst. not only are bush cheney homicidal maniacs but now they are cornered rats. they know that if the wrong person gets to the presidency the truth might well come out. the truth about how they were behind 9/11 i mean. along with sharon.

that by itself is a compelling reason to vote for obama. and further i would guess that he must be wise to the scope of the plotting if he has survived this long. lets hope that he survives to the end of the year and beyond, and that the election is not called off. and lets do what we can to make things hot for the forces of darkness. thank you gore.

The mainstream media has ignored the articles of impeachment because it’s meaningless. It’s an election year roos. Dead on arrival.

The Congress too has had a hand in Iraq, the Patriot Act, etc. etc.. All of it.