SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : THE 2004 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: GROUND ZERO™ who wrote (1426)2/19/2004 9:30:22 AM
From: redfish  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 2164
 
"I guess the fact that sadam insane was murdering and torturing his own people didn't matter to you?"

Certainly doesn't matter to me, I don't have a dog in that fight. Let them look after themselves. Do you think the people of Iraq spend their nights worrying about my welfare?

Just a shame he didn't kill a few million Saudis while he was at it.



To: GROUND ZERO™ who wrote (1426)2/19/2004 1:01:01 PM
From: Orcastraiter  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 2164
 
Saddam was able to be in power because of the support of the US. That he was allowed to torture and kill, while we looked the other way, was abhorrent no doubt.

But while Saddam was doing our bidding, somehow the plight of the Iraqi people was never considered. But once he crossed big daddy then suddenly these human rights issues are in the forefront. This is hypocrisy of the highest order.

Saddam was accused of having WMD. But once the WMD could not be found, the reason for the attack has been shifted to Saddam's poor human rights record. And this justifies the bombing of urban areas and the slaughter of 10,000 more? The loss of 500+ Americans?

It was the Americans that armed Saddam in the first place. And now we are going to get him because he is armed?

I believe that we could have gotten rid of Saddam in other ways. Bush's war was not needed to rid Iraq of Saddam. Yes military pressure was part of the equation needed to oust Saddam, but it all could have been accomplished in other ways. There was no need to bomb Baghdad. Saddam was on the way out. Though a combination of diplomacy and military pressure, the same outcome of Saddam being ousted could have been accomplished.

Instead of simply ousting Saddam and letting the Iraqis govern themselves, we are now engaged in guerilla warfare and nation building. The date of July 1st for turning the reins of power back to the Iraqis appears to be fading. How long will the US stay in Iraq? What is the reason for the US to be there? Could it be oil?

Orca



To: GROUND ZERO™ who wrote (1426)2/19/2004 8:42:39 PM
From: Orcastraiter  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 2164
 
The Incredible Lying BushCo
This just in: More irrefutable proof that Dubya's is the slimiest administration in 100 years

By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist
Friday, October 31, 2003


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Like you even needed more proof.

Like you even need to read about the incredible and ever-increasing list of lies and misinfo and deeply, colon-clenchingly humiliating wrongness shot forth from the mouth of the GOP machine, a truly jaw-dropping assortment of falsehoods and fabrications about war, and war, and war. Oh, and the economy. And the environment. And war.

Look. There is no doubt left. Zero. None. Even many high-ranking Republicans are deeply worried over the increasingly embittered national timbre regarding BushCo's lies, as reflected in his ever-slipping ratings and declining reelectability quotient and his smug little smirky emptiness.

Do you need to be reminded? Do you need to see it again?

Very good, then. Let us recap: No WMDs. Biggest joke on the American public in the past 50 years. Saddam doesn't have 'em, and probably never did. Over 1,400 of BushCo's own investigators and specialists and scientists -- affectionately known as the Iraq Survey Group -- canvassing postwar Iraq for six months, not to mention the teams of original U.N. investigators, and finding not a trace of anything resembling huge stockpiles of massive scary weaponry.

Which is to say, no nukes. No biotoxins. No big cannons full of scary Korans and rusty bullets and old gum. Nothing at all resembling what Condi Rice and Cheney and Rummy and Wolfowitz, et al., said were absolutely positively no question going to be found any day now because after all that's why we went to war. Except that it wasn't. And they knew it.

To paraphrase The Washington Post: Among the judgments of the above-mentioned Iraq Survey Group, as overseen by David Kay, who reports directly to CIA Director George Tenet, are these: Iraq's nuclear-weapons scientists did no significant arms-related work after 1991. Also, all those facilities with suspicious new construction (remember Colin "Emasculated" Powell's bogus satellite photos?) proved benign, and of no military use whatsoever.

This is not speculation. This is not liberal wishful thinking. These are facts. And BushCo knew them. And more.

Translation: Bush's urgent call back in March to bomb the living crap out of pissant Iraq because Saddam had irrefutably cranked up his nuke arsenal and might possibly bomb weak depressed New York at any minute and wipe out all the Starbucks and ruin Monday Night Football was not only completely bogus and impossible, it was shockingly dangerous, and unprecedented, and even borderline treasonous.

Remember how Saddam ostensibly loved al Qaeda? Remember how Uncle Dick helped drill that terrorism connection into the cultural consciousness, repeatedly, across all media for months on end just before the war, thus inducing upward of 50 percent of the disturbingly gullible U.S. population to believe that Saddam actually had a hand in 9/11? When he didn't? When there was no connection whatsoever? Remember that?

Ah, yes. It turns out that all intelligence and every piece of evidence points exactly the opposite way. As BushCo was well informed, Saddam might only make contact with al Qaeda -- his sworn enemies -- if his back was against the wall, and probably not even then.

More? Sure. How about Afghanistan? Remember that? Osama at large. Never captured. Taliban resurfacing. No aid for the country and no rebuilding (except for a shiny new oil pipeline) and complete devastation and neglect.

And even Rummy, in his private and damning memo, said as much, just last week, writing that there is absolutely no way to tell whether we are making any progress in the war on terror, and that "victory" would be "a long, hard slog," and that it was impossible to say whether we are killing known terrorists any faster than the increasingly furious and inspired madrassas, or Islamic fundamentalist schools, can manufacture them.

"This is a man that we know has had connections with al Qaeda. This is a man who, in my judgment, would like to use al Qaeda as a forward army." -- President Bush, Oct. 14, 2002

"Yes, there is a linkage between al Qaeda and Iraq." -- Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Sept. 26, 2002

"There have been contacts between senior Iraqi officials and members of al Qaeda going back for actually quite a long time." -- National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice, Sept. 25, 2002

Isn't that cute? Not a single one of those statements was true. And not a single one of those people is being accused of treason or malfeasance or of being a soulless anti-American warmongering drone, despite how their words were dripping with lies when they exited their mouths.

Look. Bush told Americans we were going to enter into this savage and bloody war no one really wanted because Iraq posed an immediate and imminent threat to the security of the U.S. and its citizens. He gutted the economy for it. He destroyed long-standing relationships with countless international allies for it. He made America into this rogue superpower brat, disrespected and untrustable and appalling, for it. And it was never true.

How about this? More soldiers have died since BushCo declared the war essentially over six months ago than during the war itself. And guerrilla attacks on U.S. forces have more than doubled over recent months to more than 25 per day, with fresh American causalities coming in nonstop.

No matter, says the GOP. All part of the clumsy "rebuilding" process, they say. By the way, that $87 billion BushCo just begged for to keep the Iraq war machine clunking along? That's more than the fiscal debt of all the gutted U.S. states combined. Iraq is, by every account, a devastating U.S. money pit.

Might it be worth mentioning here that comprehensive new nonpartisan investigation that reveals how at least 15,000 Iraqis, including a minimum of 4,000 civilians, were slaughtered by U.S. forces in the first days of the invasion? Or that some estimates of total Iraqi civilian deaths go as high as nearly 10,000? Do those people matter? All those women and children and poor families? Nah. Screw 'em.

And you know why they don't matter, according to the GOP? Because we got rid of a pesky evil pip-squeak tyrant, that's why. One who was zero threat to the U.S., and not much of a threat to neighboring countries, and had no 9/11 connection, but who we know killed lots of his own people 20 years ago, with America's full and complicit assistance, including the biotoxins we sold to him.

And how he's gone. Yay! Mission accomplished! Except, of course, he's not. Still alive, apparently. But he's hiding somewhere! And he's probably really furious that he had to shave his mustache, too! Ha! That oughta show him! That's $300 billion and hundreds of dead U.S. soldiers well spent, baby! God bless America.

This needs to be said. This needs to be repeated, over and over again, because apparently it is still not clear and apparently Republican apologists love to trot it out as some sort of justification, some sort of hollow and childish accusation, signifying nothing.

Yes, Bill Clinton lied, too. He lied about stupid adulterous sex. And the GOP savaged him like rabid feral swine attacking a rutabaga. Had him impeached over it. Loathe him still, and his wife, too, with unprecedented level of hatred and bile and vicious litigious action never before seen in this nation.

No such fate for BushCo. Shockingly, the GOP isn't the slightest bit upset about this pro-corporate, oil-drunk administration's deadly string of lies. Shall we wonder why? Or is it just too poisonous and sad to consider for very long, lest the intellect curdle and the soul recoil?

OK, I'll spell it out: George W. Bush and his entire senior administration lied, and continue to lie, flagrantly, openly, knowingly, with full intent, about the need to drive this nation into a brutal and unwinnable and fiscally debilitating war, one that protects no one and inhibits no terrorism and defends nothing but BushCo's own petrochemical cronies and political stratagems.

This much is obvious. This much is painfully, crushingly sad. And this much we must purge like so much clotted gunk from the collective social artery one year from now. Otherwise, we should just turn in our stained and bloody Superpower badge, and resign ourselves to our fate.


sfgate.com

Orca