I think it's absurd that a reporter who did not even write a story about this is in jail because the prosecutor has so far brought indictments against journalists as opposed to anyone who violated the law.
i know the Irgun. why don't you tell the people on board about the Samson option?
My understanding of the samson option is that Israel will raze & destroy any contry that attacks it with biological or nuclear weapons. This means unleashing its full arnsenal of weapons it has at its disposal. Do other countries have different policies concerning this. Kill us & we'll kill you seems to be the norm, if you look at human history. Also, isn't that Samson Option book a bit on the sketchy side?
i know the Irgun. why don't you tell the people on board about the Samson option?
My understanding of the samson option is that Israel will raze & destroy any contry that attacks it with biological or nuclear weapons. This means unleashing its full arnsenal of weapons it has at its disposal. Do other countries have different policies concerning this. Kill us & we'll kill you seems to be the norm, if you look at human history. Also, isn't that Samson Option book a bit on the sketchy side?
h
What does this have to do with this guy outing a CIA agent?
Where's the indigantion at this? Singling out people & a country in an instance where nothing applies? What's next: blaming African Americans for the London bombing?
it's baiting Vitamin. has nothing to do with Plame/Rove..or does it?
and the Samson option is how Israel keeps that US gravy train running. They have about 2 weeks ability to stave off all the enemies surrounding them if the US cuts them off. So they threaten nuclear attacks. Nobody wants that. I say let Iran get Nukes and them dumbasses can have their own little sandy cold war. We need to get the fuck out of there NOW. I think we have plenty of problems here.
Fuck they just asked for another 2.5 billion to help them pull out of Gaza. Fucking nerve. Ugh.
Roootless presuming what I read etc. can eat shit.
and the Samson option is how Israel keeps that US gravy train running. They have about 2 weeks ability to stave off all the enemies surrounding them if the US cuts them off.
[color:green]^^^you have just taken archaic's place[/color] [color:red] as the offical jew hating nutball of soulstrut,[/color] [color:blue]congrats fatback!!!^^^ [/color]
I say let Iran get Nukes and them dumbasses can have their own little sandy cold war.
why don't you tell the people on board about the Samson option?
Cause it has NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS THREAD.
you don't know me. watch your step kid.
No you watch your step: in London, or Madrid, or NY, etc...Cause it ain't the Irgun blowing up these days.
PS: You won't find this on indymedia, but it's worth considering.
fucking pussy fucking bitch putting PM up.
i'm trying to spare you a rooting.
where do you live?
Holly crap, dude! What's wrong with you Fatback? All the years I've seen you post you've been a decent, friendly guy. Where does this bizarre aggresion come from? rootless hasn't personally attacked you and even if he did, this is an internet forum! You're seriously going to threaten the guy because he questioned the validity of your argument? How does the old Shingaling line go? Drink a 40, smoke a blunt, and get laid?
it's baiting Vitamin. has nothing to do with Plame/Rove..or does it?
and the Samson option is how Israel keeps that US gravy train running. They have about 2 weeks ability to stave off all the enemies surrounding them if the US cuts them off. So they threaten nuclear attacks. Nobody wants that. I say let Iran get Nukes and them dumbasses can have their own little sandy cold war. We need to get the fuck out of there NOW. I think we have plenty of problems here.
Fuck they just asked for another 2.5 billion to help them pull out of Gaza. Fucking nerve. Ugh.
Roootless presuming what I read etc. can eat shit.
You are a lanky white dude who drives a scooter. For the last few weeks you have been spouting the politics of Pat Buchanan in the voice of Shug Knight. You apparently believe that the only reason Israel receives aid from America is because of its nuclear program. Did you learn this from a magic hat or do you actually have a source? Israel receives its aid because it is written into a treaty obligation Jimmy Carter signed at Camp David. It is a condition of that peace treaty widely praised by both liberals and conservatives. Now a a fair reader could interpret your passing analogy between Hamas and Irgun as an apology for terror. But seriously dude, in your quest for root causes you are letting the terrorists off by blaming their actions on Israel. Why not blame the terrorists themselves? They hated us long before Ariel Sharon was Prime Minister and George W. Bush was president. And they deserve our contempt first and foremost, not the apologies of Americans who ought to know better.
I don't know what election scandal you are referring to?
You know, dude, all that stuff about Florida & craziness. Granted, I don't live in America, but that seemed like a big deal.
Peace
h
In 2000 the Supreme court decided a presidential election by upholding a Florida Supreme Court decision to stop counting votes. In this drawn out affair, at times Republicans argued that more votes should be counted--such as absentee military ballots; and Democrats argued against counting votes in counties they did not think voted for them. Neither side was consistent and in the end the Republican governor's state secretary made a decision to stop counting, recognizing that it could have gone on forever. Later on the NAACP and others complained that Republican shadow groups intimidated minority voters, a complaint made in every election, from going to the polls. Republicans contended that Democrats tried to register non-citizens and felons. For almost 100 years both parties have sought to bend elections rules in this way.
The point here is that no one could have predicted that the Florida vote would be so close. Originally the networks called it for Gore, then it was too close to call. I voted for Gore by the way in 2000. At the time I knew exactly who to blame for why he lost: Ralph Nader. Now that the Naderites in their determined hatred of Bush have rejoined the Democratic party they think they own it. And I'm sure people like Karl Rove are delighted that Michael Moore was so closely associated with the Democratic party in 2004 and would hope this affiliation continues. But as a Democrat who can't stand these accomodationists, I would like them to leave the party. Let them form the peace and justice party or whatever they want. The Democrats may not win Cambridge or San Francisco. But it will be possible to get a pro-choice, pro-science and anti-terrorist president back in the white house.
You are a lanky white dude who drives a scooter. For the last few weeks you have been spouting the politics of Pat Buchanan in the voice of Shug Knight.
In addition to your usual incoherence and ad hominum attack on my character (a sign of polemical confidence, no doubt)
Guilty as charged. I mix it up on the polistrut. But only after someone says some ridiculado shit about me. And believe me, I take far more than I hand out by miles.
Yes, but the law in question was written to protect individuals with non-official cover. Plame not only used her real name, but was an analyst. I'm not so sure and don't think anyone knows whether she was on some Jen Garner Alias ish.
BTW, I am in no way defending the outing of CIA agents. The point of my post was that for years it was conservatives who pressed for a felony law to apply to people who did and liberals who questioned whether such a specific statute may have prevented whistleblowers like Agee from informing the America people about what the secret agency of their government was doing.
I am also no so sure that Rove leaked her name as retribution against Wilson. Newsweek's story suggests that he told Cooper the information to steer him away from the story. Something like well you and I know the CIA wants to embarrass the president and Wilson's wife is in the agency. I'm not telling you anything you don't when I say that in 2004, the Bush White House believed the CIA was politically a fifth column.
Finally, we are for the most part agreed here. I don't think this compares to Watergate even if the worst interpretation of events is true, which we don't know yet. I think it's absurd that a reporter who did not even write a story about this is in jail because the prosecutor has so far brought indictments against journalists as opposed to anyone who violated the law.
Ok, bear with me while I go through some of this.
Fatback, this thread would be more pleasant if you stuck to facts (which are on your side) and eased up on the personal attacks.
Is the outing of VP worse than the Watergate break in?
One was a political dirty trick involving a petty burglary, the other was the felonous outing or a CIA operative.
That is the micro.
On the macro, one was the massive abuse of power by the president only brought to light because 2 reporters and one FBI agent thought it important enough to expose.
The other is a massive abuse of power by the president that has yet to be brought to light.
Still, since we are talking about fixing intellegence to create a justification for an unjust war, I would say this is far worse.
Outing Plame was nothing more than a personal attack on Wilson. Something the administration has done to all kinds of people before and probably into the future who have criticized Bush, as in the best defense is an offense.
What I'm trying to point out is that you are explaining the reasons behind the Watergate break in, but ignoring the reasons behind outing Plame. It wasn't just revenge for some isolated criticism, it was also a warning to those who speak out against the administration. The particular events involved in this case are also troubling. As Dan pointed out above, the outing was in response to criticism against the blatant fabrication of a pretense for war. That seems quite a bit more serious to me than a simple, isolated personal attack.
OK, let's do some historical proportioning here.
Rove outs Plame because the administraiton is mad that Wilson attacked the claim that Iraq was buying uranium for its nuke program. Novak writes ONE editorial about it. The following pieces by Judith Miller of the NYT and that other guy (name escape me) are about how this story came from the White House and its an attack on critics of the Iraq war. From the beginning the White House is exposed as being vindictive and that actually becomes the story. Wilson goes on to write a book, goes on the interview tour, becomes really famous. Is NOT silenced. There were plenty of other critics of the administration's policies that were also attacked over the Iraq war such as Hans Blix and Al Baradei (sp?) head of the international nuke inspections, that were much worse than what Rove did to Plame and none of them were silenced. There was TONS of criticism of the Iraq war as all of us know from within the establishment of Washington.
Compare this to Watergate.
Nixon pulls all kinds of dirty tricks against the Democrats including breaking into their national headquarters in order to win the presidential election. Nixon ends up winning the election, fires a couple Attorney Generals, orders the CIA to squash an FBI investigation into the matter, ends up having to resign because he's going to be impeached.
People were pissed that voters weren't being counted property in Florida during the Bush-Gore election, while Nixon pulled all kinds of bullshit that were FAR FAR worse than that and ended up winning as well.
There's no way saying that you cheated to win the president of the United States is the same as attacking your critics even during a war. The level of law breaking and downright dirty tricks perpetrated by Nixon makes Bush look like a freakin saint. And if you don't remember Nixon was at the end of the Vietnam war and also illegally invaded and bombed Cambodia while he was at it, while also overthrowing Allende in Chile to boot, so don't come back with Bush lied about Iraq, cuz Nixon lied about almost everything he did!
Mo I know you know your stuff. But here I disagree with you.
Wilson was effectifly marginalized. If he hadn't been then when Rice told the nation that the smoking gun was going to be a mushroom cloud she would have been laughed at.
The Bush administration did 2 things 1) They fabricated a justification for war. 2) They destroyed the credibility and the standing of their critics.
You think Watergate is worse. I think this war is worse. In fact I think it is treasonous that Bush abondoned the war on terror to go fight this war.
When you say the intelligence was fixed around the policy, then you must account for the fact that Saddam did not comply with the final opportunity to come clean. The Bush administration did not invent the prior 16 security council resolutions that required Saddam to convince the international community that he did not have weapons of mass destruction. Hans Blix himself not only said he had remaining disarmament tasks but also testified that Saddam was not meeting many other confidence building measures like making his scientists available without chapperones and threatening to shoot down surveillance flights. Furthermore, the Senate Select Intelligence committee report; the Silbermann Robb Commission and the Butler report in Britain (not to mention a classified report in Israel) all dismissed the notion that there was political pressure regarding the wmds. There was a consensus that Saddam had bad stuff among even the intel services of countries that opposed the war.
In some instances some intelligence agencies disagreed on specific facts: The Department of Energy did not think the aluminum tubes were made for centrifuges for example, but they also thought rotors and magnets Iraq was importing was for a nuclear energy program. The terms of the cease fire in 1991 required Saddam to get rid of stocks of weapons he had already said he had. Those stocks have never been found. The key presentations made to the international community and Congress were vetted to exclude the neocon analysis. And when you say the war was unjust, you need to explain why it was just to allow a dictator we helped create continue to torment his own people.
How is cheating and WINNING the presidency of the United States
the SAME
as attacking a critic/s over a war and NOT silencing him/them????
If you think Nixon won because of the Watergate break in you are nuts. The Watergate story broke before the election. In the same way that we just Reelected Bush knowing he had abondonded the war on terror for the war Iraq, our parents elected Nixon knowing he was a crook.
I'm not telling you anything you don't when I say that in 2004, the Bush White House believed the CIA was politically a fifth column.
because most of the world's intelligence services believed Saddam had WMD and furthermore Saddam himself did nothing to comply with the final UN resolution.
Ok, so let me get this straight. Most of the worlds intelligence services believed that Saddam had WMD, but the CIA did not? Most of the worlds intelligence services believed that Saddam had WMD, but the weapons inspectors did not? Wilson, who actually followed up on WMD claims did not believe it, but most of the world's intelligence services did?
I already told to leave that weak argument out of this.
Here is the truth; Most of the world's intelligence services believed that Saddam had no on going WMD program. Most of the world's intelligence services did not believe that Saddam had nuclear capabilities. Most of the world's intelligence services did not believe that Saddam possed an imminent threat.
That is why most of the world opposed going to war in Iraq.
That is why Bush and Blair conspired to fix the intelligence.
Please do not bring that tired weak punk argument around here again.
I think the left's hatred of Bush
Let's but that Bush hating stuff you like to bring up to rest also.
In the spring 2002 public support for Bush and his handleing of the war on terror was around 90%. That puts Bush haters at about 10%. The other 50% or Americans that you would like to marginilize by calling them Bush haters are people who realize that we have allowed AQ to rebuild while we abondonded the war on terror for the war in Iraq. They are people who have noticed that Iraq is now an AQ urban warfare training ground. They understand that Istanbul, Rome, Kabbul and NYC may soon be seeing the kind of terrorist insurgence that is being practiced in Bagdad. Do they hate Bush for doing that to us? Perhaps, but is a rational justified hatred.
When you say the intelligence was fixed around the policy, then you must account for the fact that Saddam did not comply with the final opportunity to come clean. The Bush administration did not invent the prior 16 security council resolutions that required Saddam to convince the international community that he did not have weapons of mass destruction. Hans Blix himself not only said he had remaining disarmament tasks but also testified that Saddam was not meeting many other confidence building measures like making his scientists available without chapperones and threatening to shoot down surveillance flights. Furthermore, the Senate Select Intelligence committee report; the Silbermann Robb Commission and the Butler report in Britain (not to mention a classified report in Israel) all dismissed the notion that there was political pressure regarding the wmds.
All this may be true. But it is hair splitting. There were 100 inspectors on the ground with free reign. Scientist were being interviewed. The important thing to note here is that NO EVIDENCE OF WMD PROGRAMS were being uncovered by the inspectors. Yes the scientest were being chapporoned but they were also telling the truth. Something that Bush was not doing.
There was a consensus that Saddam had bad stuff among even the intel services of countries that opposed the war.
Bush's rational was not that Saddam had bad stuff. His claim, and the story that Powell told the UN, was that Iraq had an ongoing large scale industrial WMD program. Not that he had some bad stuff.
In some instances some intelligence agencies disagreed on specific facts: The Department of Energy did not think the aluminum tubes were made for centrifuges for example, but they also thought rotors and magnets Iraq was importing was for a nuclear energy program. The terms of the cease fire in 1991 required Saddam to get rid of stocks of weapons he had already said he had. Those stocks have never been found. The key presentations made to the international community and Congress were vetted to exclude the neocon analysis.
Again the point being that all the intellegence agencys agreeed he did not have the on going industrial WMD programs that the administration was claiming.
And when you say the war was unjust, you need to explain why it was just to allow a dictator we helped create continue to torment his own people. Vitamin
I know that you deeply and honestly believe that the morally correct thing to do was to remove Saddam. I respect that.
The war was never justified on those grounds. It was justified to the American people and to the countries of the world around a pack of lies. Part of selling the package involved destroying the standing and careerers of people like Wilson.
To me that is not just.
I do not believe that is just to go to war against a soveriegn nation that is not an immenent threat.
I do not believe that it is just to go go war against a soveriegn nation that is not carrying out genocide. (Yes, I know about the attrocities that occurde a decade before we went to war.)
These are not just my belifes, they are international law.
I believe that after 9/11 attacking AQ and their host country was justified. If Bush had "smoked the terrorists out of their caves" and "gotten bin Laden dead or alive", no democrat presidential candidate would have gotten more than 30% of the vote. Instead he fled Afganistan, left it's defense to NATO, and embarrked on the ill-begottan war in Iraq.
Lastly to directly answer your question; we were not allowing a dictator we helped create continue to torment his own people. In fact we had established no fly zones over 2/3 of Iraq, a move that stopped the attacks on Shii and Kurdish villages. Because of international pressure at the time of the invasion Saddam was torturing his own people less not more.
The current Iraq goverment has been caught torturing it's own people. Do you think it would be just for France and Germany to attack Iraq today to remove the current goverment?
This is from the extremely non-biased MoveOn.org, but the point is that the indictment came through.
Halloween indictment partay tonight!
"Today, the Chief of Staff to the Vice President of the United States was indicted by a federal grand jury.
Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, a Republican appointee, announced that Lewis "Scooter" Libby lied to a grand jury, lied to FBI agents and obstructed an investigation into the White House cover-up of the lies that led our nation to war in Iraq. Libby has now resigned. Top White House advisor Karl Rove remains under federal investigation.
This is one of the biggest scandals to rock the White House in America's 229-year history."
Comments
You know, dude, all that stuff about Florida & craziness. Granted, I don't live in America, but that seemed like a big deal.
Peace
h
Word? tell those fools I say what up.
Cause it has NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS THREAD.
No you watch your step: in London, or Madrid, or NY, etc...Cause it ain't the Irgun blowing up these days.
PS: You won't find this on indymedia, but it's worth considering.
fucking pussy fucking bitch putting PM up.
i'm trying to spare you a rooting.
where do you live?
My understanding of the samson option is that Israel will raze & destroy any contry that attacks it with biological or nuclear weapons. This means unleashing its full arnsenal of weapons it has at its disposal. Do other countries have different policies concerning this. Kill us & we'll kill you seems to be the norm, if you look at human history. Also, isn't that Samson Option book a bit on the sketchy side?
h
What does this have to do with this guy outing a CIA agent?
Where's the indigantion at this? Singling out people & a country in an instance where nothing applies? What's next: blaming African Americans for the London bombing?
h
and the Samson option is how Israel keeps that US gravy train running. They have about 2 weeks ability to stave off all the enemies surrounding them if the US cuts them off. So they threaten nuclear attacks. Nobody wants that. I say let Iran get Nukes and them dumbasses can have their own little sandy cold war. We need to get the fuck out of there NOW. I think we have plenty of problems here.
Fuck they just asked for another 2.5 billion to help them pull out of Gaza. Fucking nerve. Ugh.
Roootless presuming what I read etc. can eat shit.
Palestine. Come holler at me.
[color:green]^^^you have just taken archaic's place[/color] [color:red] as the offical jew hating nutball of soulstrut,[/color] [color:blue]congrats fatback!!!^^^ [/color]
now that is just ignorant
Holly crap, dude! What's wrong with you Fatback? All the years I've seen you post you've been a decent, friendly guy. Where does this bizarre aggresion come from? rootless hasn't personally attacked you and even if he did, this is an internet forum! You're seriously going to threaten the guy because he questioned the validity of your argument? How does the old Shingaling line go? Drink a 40, smoke a blunt, and get laid?
You are a lanky white dude who drives a scooter. For the last few weeks you have been spouting the politics of Pat Buchanan in the voice of Shug Knight. You apparently believe that the only reason Israel receives aid from America is because of its nuclear program. Did you learn this from a magic hat or do you actually have a source? Israel receives its aid because it is written into a treaty obligation Jimmy Carter signed at Camp David. It is a condition of that peace treaty widely praised by both liberals and conservatives. Now a a fair reader could interpret your passing analogy between Hamas and Irgun as an apology for terror. But seriously dude, in your quest for root causes you are letting the terrorists off by blaming their actions on Israel. Why not blame the terrorists themselves? They hated us long before Ariel Sharon was Prime Minister and George W. Bush was president. And they deserve our contempt first and foremost, not the apologies of Americans who ought to know better.
"Goddamed zionist cats are stealing all our money!!"[/b]
In 2000 the Supreme court decided a presidential election by upholding a Florida Supreme Court decision to stop counting votes. In this drawn out affair, at times Republicans argued that more votes should be counted--such as absentee military ballots; and Democrats argued against counting votes in counties they did not think voted for them. Neither side was consistent and in the end the Republican governor's state secretary made a decision to stop counting, recognizing that it could have gone on forever. Later on the NAACP and others complained that Republican shadow groups intimidated minority voters, a complaint made in every election, from going to the polls. Republicans contended that Democrats tried to register non-citizens and felons. For almost 100 years both parties have sought to bend elections rules in this way.
The point here is that no one could have predicted that the Florida vote would be so close. Originally the networks called it for Gore, then it was too close to call. I voted for Gore by the way in 2000. At the time I knew exactly who to blame for why he lost: Ralph Nader. Now that the Naderites in their determined hatred of Bush have rejoined the Democratic party they think they own it. And I'm sure people like Karl Rove are delighted that Michael Moore was so closely associated with the Democratic party in 2004 and would hope this affiliation continues. But as a Democrat who can't stand these accomodationists, I would like them to leave the party. Let them form the peace and justice party or whatever they want. The Democrats may not win Cambridge or San Francisco. But it will be possible to get a pro-choice, pro-science and anti-terrorist president back in the white house.
Guilty as charged. I mix it up on the polistrut. But only after someone says some ridiculado shit about me. And believe me, I take far more than I hand out by miles.
Ok, bear with me while I go through some of this.
Fatback, this thread would be more pleasant if you stuck to facts (which are on your side) and eased up on the personal attacks.
Is the outing of VP worse than the Watergate break in?
One was a political dirty trick involving a petty burglary, the other was the felonous outing or a CIA operative.
That is the micro.
On the macro, one was the massive abuse of power by the president only brought to light because 2 reporters and one FBI agent thought it important enough to expose.
The other is a massive abuse of power by the president that has yet to be brought to light.
Still, since we are talking about fixing intellegence to create a justification for an unjust war, I would say this is far worse.
Dan
Mo I know you know your stuff. But here I disagree with you.
Wilson was effectifly marginalized. If he hadn't been then when Rice told the nation that the smoking gun was going to be a mushroom cloud she would have been laughed at.
The Bush administration did 2 things
1) They fabricated a justification for war.
2) They destroyed the credibility and the standing of their critics.
You think Watergate is worse. I think this war is worse. In fact I think it is treasonous that Bush abondoned the war on terror to go fight this war.
Dan
When you say the intelligence was fixed around the policy, then you must account for the fact that Saddam did not comply with the final opportunity to come clean. The Bush administration did not invent the prior 16 security council resolutions that required Saddam to convince the international community that he did not have weapons of mass destruction. Hans Blix himself not only said he had remaining disarmament tasks but also testified that Saddam was not meeting many other confidence building measures like making his scientists available without chapperones and threatening to shoot down surveillance flights. Furthermore, the Senate Select Intelligence committee report; the Silbermann Robb Commission and the Butler report in Britain (not to mention a classified report in Israel) all dismissed the notion that there was political pressure regarding the wmds. There was a consensus that Saddam had bad stuff among even the intel services of countries that opposed the war.
In some instances some intelligence agencies disagreed on specific facts: The Department of Energy did not think the aluminum tubes were made for centrifuges for example, but they also thought rotors and magnets Iraq was importing was for a nuclear energy program. The terms of the cease fire in 1991 required Saddam to get rid of stocks of weapons he had already said he had. Those stocks have never been found. The key presentations made to the international community and Congress were vetted to exclude the neocon analysis. And when you say the war was unjust, you need to explain why it was just to allow a dictator we helped create continue to torment his own people.
Vitamin
If you think Nixon won because of the Watergate break in you are nuts. The Watergate story broke before the election. In the same way that we just Reelected Bush knowing he had abondonded the war on terror for the war Iraq, our parents elected Nixon knowing he was a crook.
Dan
Ok, so let me get this straight. Most of the worlds intelligence services believed that Saddam had WMD, but the CIA did not? Most of the worlds intelligence services believed that Saddam had WMD, but the weapons inspectors did not? Wilson, who actually followed up on WMD claims did not believe it, but most of the world's intelligence services did?
I already told to leave that weak argument out of this.
Here is the truth; Most of the world's intelligence services believed that Saddam had no on going WMD program. Most of the world's intelligence services did not believe that Saddam had nuclear capabilities. Most of the world's intelligence services did not believe that Saddam possed an imminent threat.
That is why most of the world opposed going to war in Iraq.
That is why Bush and Blair conspired to fix the intelligence.
Please do not bring that tired weak punk argument around here again.
Let's but that Bush hating stuff you like to bring up to rest also.
In the spring 2002 public support for Bush and his handleing of the war on terror was around 90%. That puts Bush haters at about 10%. The other 50% or Americans that you would like to marginilize by calling them Bush haters are people who realize that we have allowed AQ to rebuild while we abondonded the war on terror for the war in Iraq. They are people who have noticed that Iraq is now an AQ urban warfare training ground. They understand that Istanbul, Rome, Kabbul and NYC may soon be seeing the kind of terrorist insurgence that is being practiced in Bagdad. Do they hate Bush for doing that to us? Perhaps, but is a rational justified hatred.
Dan
I am glad you guys over there are paying attention, because in this country people are too busy watching tv to care about democracy much.
Dan
Palestine, Quebec? I thought you were in Montreal.
All this may be true. But it is hair splitting. There were 100 inspectors on the ground with free reign. Scientist were being interviewed. The important thing to note here is that NO EVIDENCE OF WMD PROGRAMS were being uncovered by the inspectors. Yes the scientest were being chapporoned but they were also telling the truth. Something that Bush was not doing.
Bush's rational was not that Saddam had bad stuff. His claim, and the story that Powell told the UN, was that Iraq had an ongoing large scale industrial WMD program. Not that he had some bad stuff.
Again the point being that all the intellegence agencys agreeed he did not have the on going industrial WMD programs that the administration was claiming.
I know that you deeply and honestly believe that the morally correct thing to do was to remove Saddam. I respect that.
The war was never justified on those grounds. It was justified to the American people and to the countries of the world around a pack of lies. Part of selling the package involved destroying the standing and careerers of people like Wilson.
To me that is not just.
I do not believe that is just to go to war against a soveriegn nation that is not an immenent threat.
I do not believe that it is just to go go war against a soveriegn nation that is not carrying out genocide. (Yes, I know about the attrocities that occurde a decade before we went to war.)
These are not just my belifes, they are international law.
I believe that after 9/11 attacking AQ and their host country was justified. If Bush had "smoked the terrorists out of their caves" and "gotten bin Laden dead or alive", no democrat presidential candidate would have gotten more than 30% of the vote. Instead he fled Afganistan, left it's defense to NATO, and embarrked on the ill-begottan war in Iraq.
Lastly to directly answer your question; we were not allowing a dictator we helped create continue to torment his own people. In fact we had established no fly zones over 2/3 of Iraq, a move that stopped the attacks on Shii and Kurdish villages. Because of international pressure at the time of the invasion Saddam was torturing his own people less not more.
The current Iraq goverment has been caught torturing it's own people. Do you think it would be just for France and Germany to attack Iraq today to remove the current goverment?
Dan
I just want to say that Twoply has been a voice of reason on this thread.
Dan
Indictment!
Hellz Yeah!
This is from the extremely non-biased MoveOn.org, but the point is that the indictment came through.
Halloween indictment partay tonight!
"Today, the Chief of Staff to the Vice President of the United States was
indicted by a federal grand jury.
Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, a Republican appointee, announced
that Lewis "Scooter" Libby lied to a grand jury, lied to FBI agents and
obstructed an investigation into the White House cover-up of the lies that
led our nation to war in Iraq. Libby has now resigned. Top White House
advisor Karl Rove remains under federal investigation.
This is one of the biggest scandals to rock the White House in America's
229-year history."
im not sure thats what the investigation was about.