Powell Aide Says Case for War a 'Hoax' 931
PBS recently aired an interview with Col. Lawrence B. Wilkerson (Ret), Chief of Staff at the Department of State from Aug 2002 - January 2005, addressing some of the skepticism surrounding the pre-war claims made by the Bush administration. Wilkerson claims in no uncertain terms that he "participated in a hoax on the American people, the international community and the United Nations Security Council." This is not the first time that Wilkerson has spoken out against the administration and intelligence community.
Welcome to the real world guys. (Score:5, Insightful)
Marked? (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't just about the Bush cabal! (Score:5, Insightful)
I strongly believe that the true case for war was to keep the petrodollar in power. I also believe that almost every war and military action we've been involved in since 1913 has been primarily for control of the global currency base, not for oil or trade or communism or any of the usual suspects.
Iran's current oil bourse theories came along just before the power party started beating the war drums against Iraq. I posted today the link to the Cheuvreux Report [gata.org] that reconfirms my crazy tinfoil hat theories about the control of the dollar, and this time from a huge international investment bank. War is the health of the State, said Randolph Bourne. For millenia, war was always about directly controlling others. Yet in the recent centuries, war has been about controlling others indirectly -- by controlling the means of barter between people.
No matter what Bush or Rice or Clinton or Nixon or Kennedy have said, hindsight lets us see what they were really about -- making sure that their peers and families and cronies were at the front of the welfare lines when our Federal Reserve was handing out newly printed paper dollars. To believe anything else is to continue to be a pawn to the system.
Yawn... (Score:2, Insightful)
b) anyone with two neurons to rub together should have figured this out before the shooting started
c) the public at large isn't going to get outraged about this (or anything else) unless gas prices go back up to $3/gal
Fourth estate? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Marked? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Marked? (Score:3, Insightful)
This is not news. (Score:5, Insightful)
War is almost always a hoax, and war other than in self-defense always is.
The only just reason for war is because the alternative would be even worse - that by not going to war we would have doomed even more people to slavery or death. That is almost never the case.
It clearly was not the case here, even if every allegation made against Hussein had been true, although most of them were not. The hypothetical murder of some relatively small number (hundreds or thousands) of people, via a terrorist attack Hussein had little reason and less ability to commit, would not justify the actual murder of hundreds of thousands or millions (keep in mind the long-term effects of depleted uranium, not just on Iraqis, but on US forces as well).
This war and the mindless support US citizens have given it will go down as one of the greatest crimes of modern history, and those who knowingly support it deserve at least as bad as what is coming to them, and probably worse.
But, as is almost always true of almost every war, the innocent - including those in the US - will suffer far, far more.
That of course is one of the many good reasons not to start one.
Grounds for impeachment? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Welcome to the real world guys. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Fourth estate? (Score:3, Insightful)
Ah, but the restraint on media ownership rules that got us to this point were a restraint on freedom. The fact that this destroyed the institution of independent journalism is an unfortunate side effect. The fact that the market doesn't provide the people with the institutions necessary for freedom is tautological proof they don't want freedom.
Poor Colin Powell (Score:5, Insightful)
He should have either run for President or gotten out after Clinton and not come back.
Bush & Cheney took all the credibility he had built up and wasted it by sending him to the U.N. to tell fairytales.
You can read the speech here [cnn.com] but it isn't really worth doing, as so many of the facts provided in that speech have been proven false and were apparently known to be false at the time the speech was given.
Re:This isn't just about the Bush cabal! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This isn't just about the Bush cabal! (Score:3, Insightful)
I strongly believe that the true case for war was to keep the petrodollar in power
I agree, although a side "benefit" would have been bases from which to promote continued instability in the Balkans and central Asia, regions where instability is frankly a benefit to the Empire because it potentially disrupts the supply of oil between major producers and potential future foes of the Empire.
And the Empire is not just the US, although the US has been chosen, for its economic and military strength, to do most of its "dirty work."
But all that having been said . . . why does the current strategy continue when it is so obviously doomed to fail? The supremacy of the dollar was based solely on the strength of the U.S. economy, which is now widely known to have the appearance of strength only because of the apparent strength of the dollar. No one of course wants to be the last ones holding dollars, but everyone knows that the collapse is only a matter of time, and probably a short time at that.
Re: Poor Colin Powell (Score:5, Insightful)
I detest him for not having the moral fiber to resign.
News For Nerds? (Score:1, Insightful)
Mod article "Flaimbait:" (Score:1, Insightful)
Yet more pro-Iraq war people disagree.
Film at 11.
He didn't *know* it was a hoax... apparently. (Score:5, Insightful)
I suspect this would be the likely defense if there *were* an investigation (which I don't expect) - "It wasn't *me* - I had no idea!"
The part that I find to be *more* damning is where he lists the items that the "intelligence community" *failed* to predict - fall of the Soviet Union, etc. The implication seems to be that the entire system is so flawed that preventing "hoaxes" like this in future will be difficult because it's almost impossible to know what is and is not true and whether or not you have all the data.
He's able to label the Iraq situation as a hoax only in *hindsight*, as he examines data not available to him at the time. This seems similar to the analyses done after 9/11 where there were suggestions (again, in hindsight) that the "intelligence community" should have known and been able to prevent 9/11 from happening. Hindsight's 20/20, after all...
Re:Fourth estate? (Score:2, Insightful)
Slashdot had an article about the political leanings of various news shows a while back.
My recollection is that Fox News provides a slightly to the right viewpoint, what really pulls the entire station to the far right is the Opinion shows masquerading as news. Bill O'Reilley, Hannity & Colmes, etc.
Anyways, if you're far to the left, the media is biased to the right. If you're far to the right, the media is biased to the left.
Re:This is not news. (Score:1, Insightful)
It's depleted uranium. What long term effects? If you're really worried about DU, how about getting the non-depleted uranium [ornl.gov] out of our Coal smokestacks?
I suppose next you're going to tell us that 747s shouldn't use DU beams to maintain structural integrity and airplane balance. I mean, it might be TEH R4D104CT1V3, D000Dzz! Run for the hills! Don't fly, drive, go outside, inside, DOOD LOOK THE HELL OUT FOR EVERYTHING! Oh, and please support the petition to outlaw Dihydrogen Monoxide [dhmo.org].
Pathetic.
Re:Marked? (Score:4, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:But Tonight on Fox... (Score:3, Insightful)
Didn't they appoint someone to fix that problem?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Tomlinson [wikipedia.org]
To bad he retired under accusations of political bias.
[/Irony]
The right war for the wrong reasons (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't really speak to what the Bush administrations true motives were. I suspect, that, mostly, Bush did think that Saddam Hussein was a growing threat to the US and the Western World, and didn't want to give him any chance to acquire any more WMD than he had. Maybe they sexed up the intelligence (which, btw, if they did do, I don't condone).
Why do I feel this was the right war? Perhaps my limited knowledge of history is incorrect, but, it is my current understanding that Europe and the US have played 'chess' with the Middle East for most of the 20th century, and that, to a large extent, Saddam Hussein was in power in Iraq because earlier administrations had propped him up. The U.S. has, purportedly, done some very bad things in the region, including: Iran had, at one time, a democratic government. The CIA apparently helped overthrow the democratic government and install a dictator (I don't know that he was a *bad* dictator per se, but still), which lead to the Iranian revolution which installed the current Theocracy we all know and love. It my understanding that the US then propped up Saddam Hussein as a sort of first-line-of-defense against Iran.
Personally, I feel America needs to give the middle east an apology for so much meddling, and get the hell out of their business. But, alas, Saddam Hussein was part of that meddling. And so, to try to get things somewhat 'right' before leaving, we are forced to meddle some more. And that, I feel, is the truest and best justification for the current actions in Iraq. To turn over the future of Iraq to the Iraqi people. As for Iran, as much as I don't like the current government (espcially the hate-mongering, former-terrorist president of Iran) it should also be recognized that, for to some extent, the current government of Iran represents the people of Iran, and outside of defending ourselves against them, we need to let their politics run their own course.
Of course, I may be completely wrong. I can only go by the history that I have learned, and it is within possibility that the history I've been taught is either completely wrong, or incomplete in some critical way.
The sad thing is though, that what history will likely remember is that we entered into this action on bad intelligence and bull-crap stories from Bush & Cheney, LLP. And, because we entered into it the wrong way, with the wrong communication to the Iraqi people, and the rest of the Muslim world, it will probably have the wrong outcome - forcing us to meddle further in Middle Eastern affairs.
Re:This is not news. (Score:2, Insightful)
It will be very ironic to see when the US is going to go begging to other nations to help them invade Iran, because that's the next war. Unfortunately, when that comes, we are going to have WMDs and lot of western countries who supported the US will probably refuse this time around.
Re:This isn't just about the Bush cabal! (Score:4, Insightful)
"Never ascribe to malice, that which can be explained by incompetence" [quotedb.com], or even apply Occam's Razor [wikipedia.org]. None of this makes sense compared to the simple truth that some people are nasty and have their own agenda; there is no overarching conspiracy across the generations. Or shall we start discussing the New World Order [wikipedia.org]?
This is what is truly damaging - those who should be helping the fight instead damage it by acting like crackpots. How do you expect to effect any change if unable to convince others?
Very, very interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
Having said all that, it's becoming more and more worrisome to me the degree to which the administration apparently ignored or possibly fabricated evidence. I remember saying at the time that it was a fool's errand to use WMD and/or terrorism as the reason to go to war, and that it seemed more like slick marketing than actual strategery. We had plenty of reasons to go in, and none of them had anything to do with WMDs or terrorism. Like the fact that the Iraqi forces habitually fired on US and UK aircraft patrolling the UN mandated No Fly Zones (considering that just prior to the war, I was working in the Turkish command center that controlled the Northern No Fly Zone and had friends and, literally, family flying over Iraq, yeah, I kinda took it personally).
But apparently someone, somewhere, decided that overt acts of aggression in violation of a cease-fire agreement weren't sufficient reason to justify reopening hostilities. So they decided to use weak or non-existant evidence to justify it, instead. Stupid. Just fucking stupid.
So now here we are, not-quite-three years later. We've spent billions of dollars, have hundreds of thousands of troops on the ground, and have thousands of war dead. What's the solution? Well, on the right you have people saying "It wasn't a lie, it was just a mistake." Well, when it comes to something of this magnitude, does it really matter if the root was incompetence or malfeasance? Sure, maybe from a criminal point of view (for instance, I'm not convinced there's a case for impeachment here). But not a whom-do-you-trust-to-run-the-country point of view.
Then on the left we have people like Murtha and Kennedy screaming that we should leave, RIGHT NOW GODDAMNIT!!! That's just insane, we can't leave the Iraqis in a worse position than we found them. That would be like walking away from a car stuck underwater with a woman trapped inside. I mean, what kind of man does that?
So here's what I want to see from politicians: be willing to say "Looks like we screwed up. We completely apologize to the Iraqi people and ask that you forigive us. We promise, to our citizens and the world, that we'll never again invade another country without an individual declaration of war passed by the Congress, ensuring that there will be a full debate before we, as a nation, take the lives of other human beings. We also promise that, now that we're in Iraq, we need to do right by the Iraqis and help them fix all the problems we caused. To that end, we'll follow the policies implemented by the Iraqi National Congress, and be willing to lend whatever assistance they request of us.[1]" Any politician who can say that, consistently, with a straight face, would get my vote.
[1] I know this would be effectively giving the Iraqi government a blank check, but I think that would be worth it to gain some much needed good will.
Re: Poor Colin Powell (Score:5, Insightful)
Inside, he proved nearly ineffective ungainst the Rumsfield/Cheney "cabal". By resigning, he would have cast an extremely bright light on the shadowy claims of Bush & co, he would have staked out a clear place for Republicans who don't blindly follow the party line, and he would have been an extremely popular presidential candidate, should he have chosen to run,
Re:Fourth estate? (Score:5, Insightful)
The parent exposes a point beyond political leanings. It makes sense. It's not about left or right rather, it is about demographics and ratings. The "news" are packaged to a demographic that interests advertisers, the so called 18-35 male audience. This is a tough crowd to attract given the variety of "entertainment" options available. In order to "sell" the news, it must be made entertaining and easy to consume. The antithesis of well researched investigative reporting.
If you bring a piece of information that makes one side or the other "bad", you are making half of your audience to reach for the remote. That's bad for ratings. Instead you bring two people of opposing views and let them talk about without ever reaching a conclusion.
Impeachment (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason Clinton got impeached for parsing words, is because the Republicans controlled Congress & they managed to get Articles of Impeachment passed. The Impeachment died in the Senate... because the Republicans couldn't convince 75% of the Senators that it was a good idea.
Flamboyant Posturing (Score:1, Insightful)
"One of the Greatest Crimes of Modern History?" Please. I dislike the Bush administration and their idiotic excuses for invading Iraq, but president Jr. isn't even smart enough to commit an attrocity on the level to warrant such a description.
Let's not taint the discussion buy suggesting that the war in Iraq is a criminal enterprise on the level of Hitler, Stallin, Pol Pot, or other individuals who systematically spread terror and death in their wake. It isn't something like the apartite movement of wide spread supression. Nor does it relate to the mass organized genocide that occured in the balkans or Africa in the last decade.
I'm not defending president Jr.'s actions in any way. But let's keep the conversation rational. He is stupid, but he isn't evil.
That's a pretty good hoax then (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Welcome to the real world guys. (Score:2, Insightful)
How about taking campaign cash from the PLA? Or letting his drinking buddiers at Loral ship over top shelf targeting tech for missiles? An "honest mistake"? Vince foster levitating out of his office to be found way out in some park, then clinton aides getting to ransack his offices before the cops did? An "honest mistake"? You want more, there's dozens. Hey, how about supporting the islamo/narco fascists in the KLA and attacking Serbia, when serbia dared to try and stop an outright invasion from albania? Or do you think it is proper to just let some nation invade another, they are just supposed to eat it raw? of course the serbs fought back, using simiar nasty tactics THAT WE ARE DOING right now in the middle east. Just we call it "detaining" not kidnapping, we call it "collateral damage" not genocide, we call it "stern interrogation methods" not torture..
Face reality, we have globalist traitorus goons, who are also blood thirsty killers for profit or political gain, in both parties, and *thoroughly* entrenced in the bureacracy and career spook and military areas, they just switch public-facade crime gang leadership around to keep the rabble amused and faked out there is some overwhelmingly different "choice" if you "vote" to pick crime gang A or B. And by all means, don't "waste your vote" by choosing something other than crime gang A or B!
Re:Marked? (Score:1, Insightful)
And this makes him completely different from the rest of the administration... how?
As far as I can tell, from Powell to Bush, they were all relying on the same spooks who were passing along the same bad British intel. So which is it? Did they all fuck up, including this guy? Or were they all doing the best they could with the information they had?
Re:Disgruntled (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously.
Possibly, but not every 06 gets their star and it's pretty clear real quickly if you will or will not. Most are neither bitter nor disgruntled - they've had fine careers; reached a level above the "done a good job" retiremnet point (i.e. LT Col or 05); and really acre about the Army (as an instituion) and it's Soldiers.
The telling point was how White and Shinseki were brushed aside because they didn't toe the line and had teh balls to say what they thought it would take to invade and occupy Iraq (every time I heard Rumsfeld talk about how several hundered thosuand was 200k not 300k it reminded me of Clinton's "that depends on what your definition of is is" defence.); it was equally telling how the Army had to go to a retired General to get a new Chief of Staff - a job that any GO would give their right nut or ovary for and the Vice Chief turns them down and umor had it so did several other GOs.
Re:Very, very interesting (Score:1, Insightful)
Do you have the actual quotes? My impression was that they were arguing for a phased withdrawal on a timetable of a year or so.
That's just insane, we can't leave the Iraqis in a worse position than we found them.
So almost three years after the invasion the Iraqi people are still worse off than they were before the invasion? I mean, if progress is really that slow then can you actually guarantee that the USA will ever achieve its goal in Iraq - whatever that is?
That would be like walking away from a car stuck underwater with a woman trapped inside.
Or maybe it would be like walking away from some guy looking to get in a bar fight. Have you actually sat down and thought through what would happen if the USA left or do you just take Bush's word for it that Bin Laden would become supreme dictator of Iraq when the few thousand insurgents defeated the hundred thousand strong Shiite militias armed by the USA?
I mean, what kind of man does that?
That seems to be the level that most Americans understand this: "If I walk away from this bar fight then people will realize just how small my penis is."
Re:Welcome to the real world guys. (Score:2, Insightful)
And half the people inside the US know it too
On what basis do you make that claim? Even if you assumed that the war was the only voting issue any voters took into consideration, only half of the people who voted voted against Bush. The vast majority of USA citizens just sat back and didn't bother to vote at all. There's no reason to assume that they know the war was built on bullshit.
What do you think a democracy is for? (Score:3, Insightful)
Blame your fellow Americans for the way they voted in the last election. If the "people" don't care about being lied to or don't care about complete idiocy and incompetence they *deserve* to bear all the consequences of the incompetence, mistakes and lies of their leaders.
The American people had a chance to "bring Bush to account" and they gave him a big thumbs up.
Re:Disgruntled (Score:2, Insightful)
Whatever. This is not news, as Wilkerson has been saying this for months. And it's not interesting, because Wilkerson offers no new facts, only opinions.
It's kinda like Richard Clarke's book: if you look at his actual facts, it does not add up to a serious condemnation of Bush. It's only when you add his opinions that it becomes an attack on Bush. Same thing here: he obviously disagreed with the policy, and he is disgruntled for that and perhaps other reasons, and he is speaking out, but he is not actually giving us new or interesting information.
But that doesn't matter: he agrees with "us" so therefore "we" were right all along!
Re:Marked? (Score:1, Insightful)
- 19th-century Danish Christian philosopher Soren Kierkegaard
Re:Old News (Score:3, Insightful)
SOP for the Corrupt Ohio Republican Party.
Re:Welcome to the real world guys. (Score:2, Insightful)
You mean the half that still demands the Iraq hoax creating the problems we now face in the Middle East?
Afghanistan's Taliban hosted bin Laden's Qaeda, which planebombed us. I understand that wingnuts always want to ignore bin Laden, and invade Iraq. But when one of the perpetrators straight up tells you that you've been hoaxed, it's time to admit you're a chump.
Re:This isn't just about the Bush cabal! (Score:1, Insightful)
Since when did abject, paranoid, speculation count as "Insightful" on
While you may well be right about the current conflict in Iraq, and any number of other wars fought in the region in the latter half of the last century, trying to tie in every conflict from before the 1st world war as well to the control of global currency screams of PCT delusions.
At least you didn't mention David Icke or Ken Adachi as protagonists. And I do give you high marks for acknowledging your theories are the stuff of the crazy Tinfoil Hat crowd. Unfortunately, that's what they are. As for the report? Take it with a healthy grain of salt too - especially if you think the folks who published it doen't have their own agenda...
Clinton's balanced budget myth. (Score:3, Insightful)
Greenspan was inflating the currency base faster than even. The CPI did not keep up with the M3 money supply. This put more money into the economy, inflating consumer prices but also inflating the stock market, causing higher than expected profits which in turn put more money back into the government in the form of taxes. More money gave the government more spending allowances, but inflationary cycles can't last forever before someone realizes that the growth was due to the printing press at the Fed, not real economic growth.
Clinton's regime also used social security income as an income line item, instead of storing it in a non-existant "social security lockbox." That's like asking your boss for a loan against future income, and then calling that loan income even though you'd have to pay it back someday.
Lastly, much of government's real debt was listed as long term liability instead of actually calling it debt, so certain payable line items were taken off the budget books.
Viola, fake balanced budget. If any private individual or corporation balanced their books this way, they'd go to jail.
Correct of course (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Welcome to the real world guys. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fourth estate? (Score:2, Insightful)
The real cure to this would be to have an educated and interested populace of active voters. People who will stand up with their vote and demand the current political process of demonizing isn't what we expect out of people we are putting into power. Unfortunatly, that will never happen in our lifetime. Legislation is the wrong answer to 99 out of 100 questions.
Re:News For Nerds? (Score:1, Insightful)
I guess it's easier to cry "Bush Lied!" than address all of the points. Scary.
Re:Lack of responsibility (Score:2, Insightful)
"Bush made a false call which caused 2,000+ Americans and unknown number of Iraqis to die."
Are you arguing that Bush knew that Iraq had no WMDs (unlike the rest of the world) or that Bush was wrong about the WMDs (along with the rest of the world) or that Iraq did have WMDs, but they were exported before the invasion began (as claimed by an Iraqi Air Force general).
How many Iraqis have been saved from torture, mutilation, and rape?
Were you oppsed to Clinton's actions in Kosovo/
In another news story today... (Score:5, Insightful)
False != hoax (Score:3, Insightful)
1. Hoax: intentional falsification of intelligence reports.
2. Honest mistake: Saddam's bluff took in the intelligence community, and every time his scientists lied to him they were lying to Western eavesdroppers.
3. Dishonest mistake: starting with the desirability of a war as a premise, drop any conflicting assessments onto the floor and assume that whatever you want to hear is the truth.
Draw your own conclusions, but read Woodward's _Plan of Attack_ first.
Re:This isn't just about the Bush cabal! (Score:5, Insightful)
Your point is reasonable, sane, mainstream and utterly feasible. However, your second point is absolutely wrong. You are making a common mistake among normal, respectable citizens. You believe that politicians are "nasty" and have a tendency to misbehave. A more realistic POV is that politicians are often "evil" and have a tendency to destroy all who oppose them.
I think Wilkerson's points are well taken. There are certain things that are constant in government, like taxes, war, power, secrets, money and lies. It doesn't really matter which party is in power. Sure, Republicans are a more obvious form of evil, but Democrats are much more subtle and insidious in power. Neither party is good for America. Both parties are corrupt.
Is it really so hard to believe that a group of wealthy businessmen, bankers and military types would conspire to "own" both parties so that no matter which way the public votes, they'll still be in power? That's not conspiracy-theory madness, that's just good business. Just look at the campaign contributions from the last few election cycles. Most major businesses & their leaders would give heavily to both parties. Why would you, as a businessman, want to piss off one of the parties? Doesn't it make sense to own both? Hell, politicians are cheap - you can rent-to-own for extremely low prices, like a couple hundred grand, but you can get back millions, if not billions of dollars in favorable legislation (tax breaks, pork, no-bid contracts, etc.). Let's not dance around the issues like we live in fantasyland: Corporate America owns the U.S. Government. They own both parties, less a few hardcore partisans and maybe a couple idealists.
You speak of crackpots, but I think you're the one dealing in crackpottery if you want me to believe that things are exactly as the (corporate) news media presents them. The truth is much more complex, and much uglier. Our politicians swear allegiance not to our liberties or the Constitution, but to the Almighty Dollar. Do they work together to keep their status/office? Of course: You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours.
You can call that a conspiracy. I call it business as usual.
Some good documentaries to check out if you want to look into how oil and the military industrial complex fits into all of this:
Why We Fight [imdb.com]
The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear [imdb.com]
This is what is truly damaging - those who should be helping the fight instead damage it by acting like crackpots. How do you expect to effect any change if unable to convince others?
Why should the truth be convenient or rational? Why does the truth have to fit inside mainstream political discourse? Why should we have to let the politicians frame the debate and define the terms? You're the one who's ruining the discourse by throwing around words like "crackpot" while doing nothing to refute the grandparent's original points. If you want to have a discussion, then by all means, let's. However, you should concentrate more on facts and reality than attacking others' viewpoints just because they don't fit into your narrow reality.
Re:Very, very interesting (Score:3, Insightful)
By that I mean, what kind of man walks away from a problem he created to leave others to deal with?
I understand what you are trying to say, however they are some problems with this. To use your bar fight analogy, we are trying to fix up the bar while the bar fight is still going on. You cannot fix it because the situation is still a mess and is only going to get worse.
The US screwed up the situation in Iraq, but we are not in a position to fix it. Iraqis have to figure what they want to do and where they want to go, we cannot help them do that and the US has a significant budget crisis, we cannot afford to spend billions of dollars in Iraq when we cannot even fund an effective cleanup of New Orleans.
It takes a tough man to make tough decisions and in this case pulling out of Iraq almost completely is one of those tough decisions but it is the right one because we are not in a position to help them, at least not yet. When Iraqis decide they want our help they will ask for it, we cannot force it down their throats by pure force of will and large amounts of money.
Re:This isn't just about the Bush cabal! (Score:3, Insightful)
It's always good to know what you want to prove when you go looking for evidence. It helps you prove it.
I hope he is remembered for this quote. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:News For Nerds? (Score:1, Insightful)
Yeah, and back in the day we had to invade Iraq because of their WMD.
What would happen if the USA withdrew completely over the course of the next year? No one really knows. The Shia militias that the USA is currently training and arming might go on a genocidal rampage against the Sunnis. The Kurds might declare independence. The insurgents might increase their attacks and delay the repair of the basic infrastructure in Iraq.
Or, nothing at all might happen. Iraq would continue limping along. The insurgents would continue their attacks and the only difference would be that US soldiers wouldn't be killed and injured anymore.
Or, things might improve dramatically. The insurgents would no longer have any reason to fight since the occupation had ended and everyone would go about their lives.
The contention that the USA has to stay is just as much a lie/inaccuracy as the contention that the USA had to go to war with Iraq in the first place. Maybe it was in the best interest of the USA to invade Iraq and maybe it is in the best interest of the USA to continue the occupation but the assertion that the USA has to stay in Iraq is just as questionable as the assertion that Iraq had WMD.
Re:Fourth estate? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Disgruntled (Score:3, Insightful)
You propagate the lie. (Score:3, Insightful)
Those with an anti-Bush agenda seem to forget that from the late 90's up until the war literally every single one of those I mentioned were in 100% agreement over Iraq's pursuit, aquisition and stockpiling of chemical, biological and nuclear materials with the ulitmate goal of manufacturing WMD's. Maybe they were all wrong (you really think everyone worldwide was so misled?), however if you believe recent reports from certain Iraqi sources about mass movements of materials to Syria just prior ot the invasion then the jury is still out on this. But lying?
This is a lie. And for many of us, becoming anti-Bush (I have been a conservative Republican for 25 years) has to do with the obvious lies of the Bush administration (that we elected the first time) that you insist on propagating. You lie to members of all parties and your lie is often repeated by members of both parties, but it is a lie, even to those who are conservative but no longer have a party to turn to.
Re:Yawn... (Score:3, Insightful)
Does the average American actaully not have the two neuron minimum?
Few people bother applying their intelligence to things that they already know the answers to. And every american is given their answers to any political questions from their earliest days at school. They are told that America is the land of the free, that Democrats want to take all their hard earned money and give it to the lazy or that Republicans only care about the super-rich, that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour was unprovoked and answer after answer. And once someone believes something, anyone who says otherwise is attacking them.
This is true to a greater or lesser extent with all political beliefs that are picked up from school, media or culture. The average american has plenty of intelligence. But the average american uses it to prove they are right, not to find out if they are.
If Americans have a noteable trait as a country over much of Europe, it may be their idealism. If you're ever going to change the world you need that. But if Europeans have a noteable trait over Americans, it's cynicism. You need both if you're ever going to get anywhere.
These wars have been planned for a long time (Score:2, Insightful)
All that matters is the fact that the war on terror is going exactly according to how it was planned. The plans are all over the internet.
I don't know if it is wise to make a to-do list and show it to the world, then go down the list, but Iraq was just on top of the list.
The problem with this, since everyone knows the script, it makes countries like Iran and North Korea way more radical than they would have been. When you project your every move to the world, it might have the effect of making you seem unstopable but at the same time it alerts the bad guys of your next move.
Re:Welcome to the real world guys. (Score:2, Insightful)
Murtha is not 'on the left' (Score:3, Insightful)
If you knew anything about congressman Murtha you would know he is (or was) considered fairly conservative - which is why his speaking out had such impact. Of course, I expect him to be branded a 'leftist' now, especially since that's equivalent to being called a communist these days.
Also, to make your analogy more appropriate, remember that the woman trapped in the car has a gun and wants to kill you.
Not totally convinced (Score:2, Insightful)
What difference does it make (Score:1, Insightful)
Look at the fact that it was Clinton who refused to agree to sign into the international court system. If we had an international court then there would be global oversight but Clinton said no. Always remember that.
Re:Welcome to the real world guys. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:It's Still Happening (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure it is. If you have a lot of old people, and not a lot of young people, the system breaks. It's that simple. American social security works, because current workers pay for the current retiring generation. If you have a lot more people leeching benifits than are working, either taxes have to go (way) up or you have to decrease benifits.
If social security went into a fund where you were paying for your own generations retirement it would never break. Yes social security has turned a surplus that polticians have been borrowing against to pay down the deficit (this is because it's cheaper in the long run to pay down the interest on the deficit than to leave social security alone) but eventually that tool won't be there, and neither will the money for the baby boomers benifits regardless of what has been borrowed.
The only solutions are to have more children every generation (ie each couple must have more than 2.1 children), or mass immigration. If you've ever wondered why politicians support amnisty for illegal aliens when the American people are 80% against it, there is one of your answers.
Re:Lack of responsibility (Score:5, Insightful)
You are insinuating the rest of the world thought Iraq had WMDs. Most of the rest of the world did not believe Iraq had WMDs. Bush was, in fact, going against the world's opinion, not with the world's opinion. According to UN inspectors, Iraq could not have significant amounts of WMDs, nor could they have concealed WMD development programs.
These findings were verified by US inspectors after the initial phase of the war.
How many Iraqis have been saved from torture, mutilation, and rape?
Less than have died as a direct result of the war. Much fewer than those that have been mutilated as a direct result of the war. Seems we carried on the use of torture.
You're probably right about the rapes, though.
If our goal is to stop state-sanctioned torture, mutilation, and rape, why aren't we in Sudan right this minute? More people are being killed there than have ever died by Saddam Hussein's orders.
Were you oppsed (sic) to Clinton's actions in Kosovo/
At the time? Yes. But he at least had UN backing. As it turned out, we were really fighting al Queda there, unlike in Iraq which was known to be antagonistic towards al Queda from the beginning.
So, let me get this straight. It turns out that all the evidence was trumped up by somebody, that the US built its case for war on a pack of lies, and you don't care who's responsible? You don't mind being misled, lied to, and generally deceived?
I'm not that honorable. I do mind being lied to (though I wasn't misled: I didn't believe evidence used to prop up the push to war, as much of it had already been discredited). In fact, I fucking hate being lied to. I want to find out who is responsible for the lies, and I wan't that motherfucker's balls served up on a plate with a side of potato salad and a nice glass of chianti.
Re:Wilkerson's attacks (Score:4, Insightful)
Nonsense. He said Cheney was intentionally putting undue pressure on the CIA (despite, again, having no such knowledge). How is that not an attack on the administration?
This is also the same guy who accused Cheney and Rumsfeld of being in a "cabal" to undermine State, and even the President. Said Feith was also in the cabal, and was "the stupidest blankety, blank man in the world." These are not attacks?
Yes, he does not attack Bush strongly, directly, but I didn't imply that directly: I was speaking there specifically of Clarke. I didn't say or intentionally imply Wilkerson was attacking anyone, even though he obviously was.
Why some people take this as an attack Against George W. Bush is puzzling.
How you can say the things he said do not constitute an attack against the administration is likewise puzzling.
Read your constitution
Duurrrr, we have a constitution? You don't say!
Re:Welcome to the real world guys. (Score:3, Insightful)
Why? Because all those people smuggling drugs are working to enrich themselves (literally) by selling high-margin products (drugs) to one of the most affluent markets in the world. From an Occam's Razor/human nature perspective, doesn't that motivation sound a lot more logical than trying to murder the people who belong to that market, or destroy their economy?
Don't be naive: You can't build a tunnel across the Mexican border without a lot of complicity from a lot of people ... including building contractors, local police, Federal police, drug runners, and everybody else involved -- on both sides of the border. If you were a terrorist, you'd have to be freakin' Tony Robbins to be influential and motivational enough to convince American citizens with the degree of affluence and connections necessary to put your plan into motion that blowing up Americans is the right thing to do.
Re:Correct of course (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Fourth estate? (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree that regulations on media ownership are a restriction on freedom. And, as a Libertarian, I believe they are wrong.
But I also recognize that the concept of "ownership" of the public airwaves, and public rights-of-way granted under eminent domain, and especially allowing such resources to be monopolized, is equally against the concepts of freedom and liberty and honest public discourse on which this country was founded.
Unfortunately, government bureaucracy only tends to grow. As the Libertarian party has learned, people don't vote for smaller government. And as conservative Republicans have learned, even when they do, they don't get it. So, in the US, the solution to wrong-headed public policy is even more wrong-headed public policy. In this case, the grant of private ownership of public property comes with restrictions on its use. It's not the best system, but it seems to be the easiest at the moment.
"Defense" Department is offensive in nature (Score:4, Insightful)
The primary example of this is the aircraft carrier and its associated air power elements, which allows the US to attack any target in the world within a week if not a day. This advantage subjugates any defenses of a target country.
ICBMs are likewise designed for intimidation and aggression. Whereas the soviet-era ICBM standoff was defense by mutual destruction, now our ICBMs threaten any country not armed with similar capability with instantaneous death.
Our long-range bomber fleet is likewise a power projection (offensive) unit, for the delivery of bombs over distances thousands of miles from our borders
Even ground forces have been reconfigured for maximum mobility, so that full effective ground combat can be waged anywhere in the world in the span of a month. This delay is considered acceptable since that provides a month for our air and sea forces to gain air superiority and soften any defenses.
The implicit reason for this is maintenance and coercion of our economic projects throughout the world, in order to sustain the resource consumption of America's economy. Our overconsumption leads to the reality that we must project power (via offensive threats) in order to "defend" our "security" (availability of resources)
This can only be concluded to mean we are an imperialistic aggressive country. Any pretensions to the contrary is strictly propaganda.
Clearly it was a hoax (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Welcome to the real world guys. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's based on the false premise that the number of terrorists is somehow predetermined and fixed, regardless of what you do (and that you therefore preferably keep them busy as far away from you as possible). That is not true.
Doing "nothing" is better than doing things which as main consequence have that more people become so desperate that they are willing to blow themselves up. You do not solve the problem of terrorism by creating more torn apart families, torturing family members, locking up family members without due process, bombing villages because there might be some terrorist in a building etc.
Always remember that everyone that dies had family and friends. And every disturbance to the social cohesion and structures takes away "civilisation" so to speak (just look at some of the things which happended in New Orleans after Katrina to see what happens if our thin layer of civilisation disappears because people are completely disoriented and desperate when their social structures and networks are gone or disfigured).
Maybe in some way everyone is a potential terrorist, but it takes a whole lot of work before someone gets as far to be willing to blow himself up. People don't blow themselves up because they and their family are living a happy life and feel content and unthreatened. And also not because they are jealous, or merely annoyed, or even angry.
Somewhere something has to break, you have to become mentally unstable (some people are so from birth of course, but I like to think this is a small minority, usually termed psychopaths or sociopaths).
The main criticism on the "war on terror" is that the way it's being waged it only creates more terrorists. That's independent of whether or not you stand by recognising Israel as an independent state (the UN recognised it, that's not some purely Western or US position).
The Israel-Palestina case is very important and delicate (and both sides have committed countless atrocities), but the solution to that problem is not the War on Terror, nor is stopping this War on Terror (at least in its current form) a capitulation to terrorists (at most it would a capitulation to rational decision making: it doesn't work, it makes things worse, so scrap it).
It almost seems like desperation carries it forward: we have no idea what else to do and we cannot do nothing, so lets just go on making things worse, because at least then we have the feeling we tried. That's a position of weakness, not of strength. Of course, there are also people who honestly believe the current approach is the right/best one, but you do not seem to be one of them.
The least you can do is not do things which only make the terrorists stronger. The War on Terror as it is, is trying to put out a diesel fire with water. If you do not have a better approach than that, just letting it burn is a whole lot more effective.
I'm not
Re:News For Nerds? (Score:3, Insightful)
How do you figure? I'd say that 80% of slashdot dislike Bush because they have some common sense. Most of the posters might be centrist, but they are not liberal. Hell, most Democrats are not even liberal any more.
Let's talk about dismantling the cult of capitalism, cutting the military by 90%, outlawing the death panalty, and making the industrialists follow reasonable eco-friendly practices. That would be liberal.
jfs
Re:This isn't just about the Bush cabal! (Score:4, Insightful)
That being said, I don't really like the idea of gold or silver as the absolute currency. The way I see it, money *shouldn't* be backed by metal. Money, IMHO is basically a public account system for labor*. When you have currency, it's just like having an entry in your favor in the public ledger. You can exchange your money to anyone in the market for something of value because the market as a whole is indebted to you for the work you have done.
That's all it is -- we just have to keep track of who is owed what for the valuable things they have done. I don't care if it's good, silver, beans, tobacco leaves, paper, electronic signal, PGP keys, etc. Of course, any material or symbolic currency is susceptible to cheating, whether the government prints too much and drives up inflation, or people print their own fraudulent currency, or people steal currency from one another. So no matter what system we have, we still have to ensure that it's properly run.
Anywho, I think that, while there are problems with paper currency, and oversight of the paper currency authority, there are *more* problems with metal as currency. The main problem, IMHO, is that you can mine metals and basically get money for free. Money is really supposed to be exchanged in the market place for valuable work. However, owning a mine is then like having a money printing press. Furthermore, we can't make more metal (while we might be able to destroy it, it would be an expensive proposition, and a lot of people would like to take the result and reconstitute it). That means that we are not in control of the value of the currency. While there are problems with people manipulating the value, I think in the end, we still will want to be in control.
There is something about human beings that will make gold and silver valuable in any 'end of the world' scenario. Thus it's a very safe investment -- as long as you have the resources to defend, maintain, and transport these extremely heavy, extremely valuable, extremely confiscatable metals.
Let me ask you this -- where do you keep your gold and silver? If it's not on your property, my bet would be is that you would have a hard time getting your hands on it in the event that the dollar collapses. In a worse-case dollar-collapse scenario, I doubt you would be able to defend your gold and silver stash against whatever marauding gangs or paramilitary organizations are about. In any other case, how are you going to securely transport these precious metal? Do you have a personal security force?
* Even if you are selling goods, what the person is paying for is 1. getting and transporting the raw materials, 2. refining the raw materials into industry usable materials, 3. manufacturing materials into goods, 4. shipping and storing goods, and finally 5. selling goods in retail outlets. So even when you are selling a thing, what the buyer is really paying for is all the effort to make and get the thing to them.
Re:Welcome to the real world guys. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Some statements that helped start the Iraq war (Score:5, Insightful)
that isn't to say that some dems didn't speak of WMD programs in iraq after then, but just realize that using those statements from 1998 is about as disingenuous as using quotes from 1945 to 'prove' that the democrats thought germany was a threat to the US in 1973.
Re:Welcome to the real world guys. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Welcome to the real world guys. (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it'll be Iran if anyone.
N. Korea is effectively inviolate because any military action would result in about a zillion artillery rounds landing on Seoul [miis.edu]. 10+ million people live in Seoul. The mass carnage would never be tolerated and evacuation of the city is unfeasible.
Re:Welcome to the real world guys. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Look a little deeper (Score:5, Insightful)
You've conflated two completely separate concepts and somehow imagine you've had a "point" made.
The motivation for an act says nothing about the actual (or even just perceived) results. We can invade Iraq for oil, and wind up even worse off than before. That the result of our actions didn't match our desires doesn't retroactively change our motivation. That your professor doesn't believe it was "worth it" has no bearing on the motivation either, it's a statement of his opinion on the cost/benefit analysis.
I don't know where you were in 2002, but the war WE were all sold was to be a few months long, we were to be greeted as liberators, and within a year Iraq's oil sales would pay us back every penny for the cost. Either they were lying or they were just as absolutely wrong as any human can be about something. Neither speaks highly of their capabilities for leadership, but their complete failure/deception is the reason we've seen little benefit. Had they accomplished what they intended/sold, we would have seen many clear benefits, both in increased oil production/market availability and greater political influence at zero direct financial cost, as it would all be subsidized by another country's oil sales. We also would have seen American oil companies take production share from European competitors, potentially leading to economic benefits for America in general, but definitely leading to benefits for the major campaign contributors and dinner party guests of our current administration.
I hope for your sake that if you intend to remain a neo-con, you find much better mentors than any of the current influential neo-cons. They seem to be so lost in the theory of what they're doing, they never bother to open the door and see what the real world is like. Tragic that they've fallen victim to the same major failure they once condemned liberal "ivory tower intellectuals" for.
Re:Welcome to the real world guys. (Score:3, Insightful)
If the question is
Re:Welcome to the real world guys. (Score:5, Insightful)
They don't have to. All they have to do is pay the guys who already have the smuggling apparatus in place to move their cargo.
Re:well duh, don't smoke mexican marijuana (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Welcome to the real world guys. (Score:3, Insightful)
Fuck democracy (Score:4, Insightful)
We don't live in a democracy. We live in a republic. To make politicians accountable, that's the first thing you have to realize.
You also have to realize that citizens of a republic have certain responsibilities. And I'm not talking about the patriotic bullshit that we're told by government schools, media, and other institutions. I'm talking about being an active, capable, independent member of political society. I'm talking about being able to withhold your vote if there are no candidates you agree with, if the only decision is between the lesser of two evils.
We're beyond government "ignoring the Constitution". We're beyond government "breaking the law". We're beyond government turning on it's own citizens. We're way into the realm of applied political science, here. So this is a crash course:
Politicians in the US are using the "anything we can get away with" method to screw us out of our freedoms, our property, and a large chunk of our labor. And they can do so because a large percentage of Americans aren't capable members of the republic. Many of us are dependent upon the empire. We have government jobs, government loans, government housing, business tax breaks, welfare, military pay, military benefits, social security. Each of these things is a chain that binds you to this government and anything it wants to do. As long as you are dependent upon government, this government will act like it owns you. It will tax you, find you work, feed you, house you, and when things get tough, it will send you to die in war. You are their nigger.
So if you and your family can't do that: if you can't live without government hand outs, if you can't eat without a government job and US money, if you can't heat your house without oil extracted at the point of a gun or coal strip-mined with the help of a court order, you are a slave already. You don't get to complain about how your master treats you. That's the first step: become a citizen deserving of freedoms. Be capable of asserting your independence. Take responsibility for being a member of the republic.
And the alternatives should be clear by now. As the president has said: it's us versus them. It's us, peaceful, freedom-loving individuals who are concerned for the future of America, versus them, lying, warmongering sycophants who are in it for themselves. It's those that build and create versus those that take and destroy. And here's how we'll win:
Stop voting. Don't register. Stop using US currency. Stop paying taxes.
Forget about protesting. Forget about democracy. Forget about "working within the system". That's all bullshit to keep idiots occupied. These four steps, taken on a massive scale, will bring down the US government faster than you can say "military coup". And it will do so peacefully, fairly, "democratically" even.
That's how you get your country back. But here's how you keep it:
If you find a politician you agree with, and you think he will win, get a written copy of what he plans to do. Get physical proof of all his political beliefs. Scrutinize it like a lawyer would. Don't fall for any vague crap. This is your contract. You are exchanging your vote, and your sovereignty, for this politician's word. Get it in writing.
Now, when you vote for the politician, and he wins, and he doesn't do what he said he would do, or does anything that is against the contract you have with him, sue him in court. Sue him for damages. Find co-plaintiffs. Demand to be relieved from your contract. Find another politician you can trust. Or, don't, and learn to live without government. But, most importantly, remember:
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
How to stop a suicide terrorist (Score:3, Insightful)
Just ask Ireland when they really had issues with terrorism.
Well, AFAIK, the Irish terrorists never were suicidal. But, ignoring that, how and why did the terrorism in Ireland go away? Why did the Baader-Meinhof and the Brigate Rosse disappear? They are no longer in existence because their motivating power, international communism, disappeared. Don't fight the symptoms, fight the cause of the disease.
To stop islamic terrorism, the first thing one must know is that they are islamic. Their acceptance of suicide comes from their religion. Therefore, the only effective way to fight terror is by fighting religion. Not only their own kind of religion, but all kinds of religious fanatism must disappear. The kind of fanatism that drives islamic suicidal bombers is the same kind of fanatism that motivated Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma bomber, to avenge the death of his own religious leader, David Koreesh, by bombing a public building. When people become fanatics, any religion is as bad as the other.
If the USA wants to be safe from terror, the first step would be to remove from office all people like the Kansas board of education members that are trying to impose religious fanatism on the school curriculum, and the NASA administrator, or whatever his title is, who is trying to impose religious fanatism on scientific research.
Re:How to stop a suicide terrorist (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Welcome to the real world guys. (Score:5, Insightful)
If there are prizes for right wing lunacy, then you deserve one.
You know, things happen for a reason [...] But all the Clinton supporters STILL will not face this fact
I think that there is a fairly straightforward reason why most people get blowjobs...when you've had one perhaps you'll understand why. I'll give you a clue: it has nothing to do with what Bush is doing. Indeed, I honestly believe that if Bush got a few more blowjobs, we'd all be better off.
Re:Welcome to the American Political BiPolarity (Score:3, Insightful)
No, we shouldn't. What you propose is equivalent to the destruction of the USA -- by destroying all the things that make it worth keeping.
USA and the spread of democracy (Score:4, Insightful)
The danger is that the US will intervene whenever there is a free and fair election result with which it doesn't agree - then we're back with the US installing and supporting their own dictators (Saddam Hussein anyone?) with all of their attendant power abuses simply to keep the 'wrong' people out of (legitimate) power.
History always repeats!
You are naive (Score:2, Insightful)
1) We gave WMDs to him in the past?
2) Other countries did too?
3) He was a MASTER at hiding things in the desert. The place is the size of California. It could be YEARS before they would find them buried there (if we ever do). He was also very good at fooling inspectors by moving them in the front door, and moving the WMD's out the back OR->
3) He moved them out of the country before we got there?
Also if you remember just before we invaded, N Korea unplugged their cameras in their nuclear reactors. My guess (as well as other peoples' who are more in tune than I) is that Iraq had a bomb but no uranium for it. N Korea needed oil due to sanctions. It is highly likely that Saddam and N Korea were about to make a swap.
If that were the case, Saddam would have a working nuke or two. He might not be able to get it to the US, but he might could get it to Israel. Just before this time Israel made a statement that they would not wait on their allies to defend them if they were attacked and would respond with nukes if provoked.
If Saddam was dumb enough to get a bomb to Israel, they would nuke the entire region in retaliatory actions and wouldn't think twice about it. Bush knew this but couldn't allow that to happen. That is why we went to war.
And yes there were many other foreign intelligence agencies that agreed that Iraq had WMDs.
Re:Welcome to the real world guys. (Score:3, Insightful)
Besides North Korea is or should be China's problem for all practical purposes. I think sometimes that the only reason they don't reign in Kim & Co. is that it's fun to watch them make the US nervous.
Re:These wars have been planned for a long time (Score:2, Insightful)