mudcat.org: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafeawe

Post to this Thread - Printer Friendly - Home
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]


BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war

Nerd 10 Feb 04 - 11:11 AM
Teribus 10 Feb 04 - 12:08 PM
Peter T. 10 Feb 04 - 12:21 PM
Nerd 10 Feb 04 - 01:32 PM
Little Hawk 10 Feb 04 - 01:51 PM
DougR 10 Feb 04 - 01:57 PM
Nerd 10 Feb 04 - 02:11 PM
kendall 10 Feb 04 - 04:47 PM
GUEST 10 Feb 04 - 05:17 PM
Nerd 10 Feb 04 - 05:27 PM
GUEST 10 Feb 04 - 07:03 PM
Gareth 10 Feb 04 - 07:16 PM
Little Hawk 10 Feb 04 - 07:27 PM
Charley Noble 10 Feb 04 - 07:42 PM
GUEST 10 Feb 04 - 08:07 PM
Metchosin 10 Feb 04 - 08:29 PM
Metchosin 10 Feb 04 - 08:37 PM
GUEST 10 Feb 04 - 08:58 PM
Little Hawk 10 Feb 04 - 10:50 PM
Metchosin 10 Feb 04 - 11:43 PM
Metchosin 10 Feb 04 - 11:52 PM
LadyJean 11 Feb 04 - 12:02 AM
Nerd 11 Feb 04 - 01:10 AM
Metchosin 11 Feb 04 - 01:46 AM
Teribus 11 Feb 04 - 06:50 AM
GUEST 11 Feb 04 - 08:30 AM
GUEST 11 Feb 04 - 08:36 AM
Nerd 11 Feb 04 - 09:30 AM
Teribus 11 Feb 04 - 10:01 AM
GUEST 11 Feb 04 - 10:21 AM
Teribus 11 Feb 04 - 10:23 AM
GUEST 11 Feb 04 - 10:26 AM
Nerd 11 Feb 04 - 11:34 AM
Teribus 11 Feb 04 - 01:40 PM
GUEST,Arne Langsetmo 11 Feb 04 - 01:48 PM
Peter K (Fionn) 11 Feb 04 - 02:37 PM
DougR 11 Feb 04 - 02:40 PM
GUEST 11 Feb 04 - 03:16 PM
GUEST, the third 11 Feb 04 - 04:01 PM
Gareth 11 Feb 04 - 04:44 PM
Gareth 11 Feb 04 - 07:11 PM
CarolC 11 Feb 04 - 08:52 PM
GUEST 12 Feb 04 - 02:17 AM
Nerd 12 Feb 04 - 03:04 AM
Nerd 12 Feb 04 - 03:22 AM
Gareth 12 Feb 04 - 06:46 AM
GUEST 12 Feb 04 - 06:53 AM
Teribus 12 Feb 04 - 07:12 AM
GUEST 12 Feb 04 - 08:31 AM
GUEST,another guest 12 Feb 04 - 08:46 AM
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:






Subject: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Nerd
Date: 10 Feb 04 - 11:11 AM

Scott Ritter, who spent seven years as the UN's chief weaons inspector in Iraq, and opposed the current war and occupation from the beginning, argues that John Kerry was complicit in sending us to war even though he knew there were no WMD.

An excerpt:

During a visit to Washington in April 2000, when I lobbied senators and representatives for a full review of American policy regarding Iraq, I spoke with John Kerry about what I held to be the hyped-up intelligence regarding the threat posed by Iraq's WMD. "Put it in writing," Kerry told me, "and send it to me so I can review what you're saying in detail."

I did just that, penning a comprehensive article for Arms Control Today, the journal of the Arms Control Association, on the "Case for the Qualitative Disarmament of Iraq." This article, published in June 2000, provided a detailed breakdown of Iraq's WMD capability and made a comprehensive case that Iraq did not pose an imminent threat. I asked the Arms Control Association to send several copies to Sen. Kerry's office but, just to make sure, I sent him one myself. I never heard back from the senator.

Two years later, in the buildup toward war that took place in the summer of 2002, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on which Kerry sits, convened a hearing on Iraq. At that hearing a parade of witnesses appeared, testifying to the existence of WMD in Iraq. Featured prominently was Khidir Hamza, the self-proclaimed "bombmaker to Saddam," who gave stirring first-hand testimony to the existence of not only nuclear weapons capability, but also chemical and biological weapons as well. Every word of Hamza's testimony has since been proved false. Despite receiving thousands of phone calls, letters and e-mails demanding that dissenting expert opinion, including my own, be aired at the hearing, Sen. Kerry apparently did nothing, allowing a sham hearing to conclude with the finding that there was "no doubt" Saddam Hussein had WMD.

Sen. Kerry followed up this performance in October 2002 by voting for the war in Iraq. Today he justifies that vote by noting that he only approved the "threat of war," and that the blame for Iraq rests with President George W. Bush, who failed to assemble adequate international support for the war. But this explanation rings hollow in the face of David Kay's findings that there are no WMD in Iraq. With the stated casus belli shown to be false, John Kerry needs to better explain his role not only in propelling our nation into a war that is rapidly devolving into a quagmire, but more importantly, his perpetuation of the falsehoods that got us there to begin with.


There's more to this article, right here.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Feb 04 - 12:08 PM

Nerd,

In January 1999, Scott Ritter was party to a Report submitted to the UN Security Council, as was the good Dr. Blix. That Report outlined a damn sight more than a capability although it did address capability and possible ongoing development programmes.

I believe I am correct in stating that in the intervening period January 1999 to June 2000, Scott Ritter performed no further inspections in relation to Iraq's WMD Stockpiles, capabilities or development programmes. So by the time he submits his comprehensive article on the "Case for the Qualitative Disarmament of Iraq.", he is running on information that is eighteen months old, eighteen months in which there has been no monitoring or inspection work done at all.

So Scott Ritter lobbied Senators and Representatives in the spring of 2000, then went into print outlinging Iraq's capabilities and stating that Iraq did not pose an imminent threat. Fair enough, perfectly reasonable, the man is entitled to his well-informed opinion - but at that time that was all it was, his opinion.

Your post above now jumps to the summer of 2002, when the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on which Kerry sits, convened a hearing on Iraq. Now what had happened between Ritter's lobbying in the spring of 2000 and the summer of 2002, that might want the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to re-evaluate Iraq? Ritter's hard information is now three and a half years old, and there are a parade of witnesses appearing and testifying with regard to Iraq's WMD. Iraq's support for foreign terrorist groups is known. What might have caused a change in perspective with regard to Iraq and it's WMD?

Your post is a poor attempt at mud-slinging and is totally irrelevant.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Peter T.
Date: 10 Feb 04 - 12:21 PM

What might have caused a change in perspective? George Bush and his extremists deciding they wanted to go to war for the hell of it.

Scott Ritter is an interesting case, but his complaint is hardly "totally irrelevant".

yours,

Peter T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Nerd
Date: 10 Feb 04 - 01:32 PM

Teribus,

My post is just pointing out what an expert says. If Scott Ritter is "mudslinging" is up to a reader to decide. I'm just pointing out his article.

You may think that information three and a half years old is irrelevant. But if I went to Botswana today and observed its military, its economy, etc., and IF I WERE AN EXPERT (which Scott R. is and George W. and John K. are not) I think could make a pretty accurate determination about whether they would have nuclear weapons in 3 1/2 years. I would at least know what kinds of evidence we would expect to see, of goods moving in and out of the country, etc., to make a case for WMD plausible. My opinion would not be irrelevant.

You say his evidence was 3 1/2 years old, but you're assuming he had had no access to the UN's subsequent data. I don't imagine you're right about that, but I don't think either of us knows for sure.

You say that "there are a parade of witnesses appearing and testifying with regard to Iraq's WMD." But this is the whole point; they were wrong and Ritter was right! Now you say "Ritter's evidence was old, and his opinion was only his opinion." Okay, but his evidence turns out to have led to the proper conclusions, and his opinion was accurate, so maybe someone should have paid attention to him.

The issue is not only whether Kerry was justified in making the decisions he made, but whether he was justified in shutting out dissenting expert opinion from the meetings. There is one plausible reason to exclude such evidence: political pressure had been brought to bear on the committee, and its findings were therefore predetermined.

Are there other plausible explanations? Possibly. That's why, as Ritter says, "John Kerry needs to better explain his role not only in propelling our nation into a war that is rapidly devolving into a quagmire, but more importantly, his perpetuation of the falsehoods that got us there to begin with."

Would you argue that Kerry should NOT explain this? If so, what possible justification could there be in asking a politician NOT to explain himself?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Feb 04 - 01:51 PM

It wouldn't surprise me a bit if the System...which generally gets exactly what it wants...arranged to have an election between a Democrat and a Republican who both are essentially representing the same interests...regardless of what they say in public. That way the System wins regardless of who wins or loses the election. And that is the normal routine in corporate USA.

The players who act out the charade, of course, are still very desirous of being the "winner" and garnering the perks and badges of success that come with it...so you can depend on them campaigning hard. No ones likes to lose, not even in a rigged game.

The reason teribus objects to the article is simple: he doesn't sympathize or agree with its general viewpoint. He's partisan! It's an emotional reason, seeking rational justifications to brace it up...and that is the case with almost everyone's political opinions. We are all highly subjective creatures, acutely aware of our opponent's subjectivity and logical errors, but loathe to ever admit to our own.

Only someone completely unprejudiced from the start is likely to avoid doing that. Where would we find such a person?

- LH


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: DougR
Date: 10 Feb 04 - 01:57 PM

I would remind all of you that according to the report made to the Senate Intelligence Committee, the recent head of the WMD search team stated that the team did find evidence that Saddam had the CAPABILITY of producing WMDs.

I think Scott Ritter's credibility has diminished considerably since he left the WMD team and wrote his book.

DougR


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Nerd
Date: 10 Feb 04 - 02:11 PM

DougR:

WMD was purposely established as a neologism because it is so broad as to be nearly meaningless. With ammonia and bleach you can make a minimally effective chemical weapon. With ammonia and bleach and a good lab, you can make one far more effective. So "the ability to produce WMD" is really pretty meaningless. Any government has it.

You may think Scott Ritter's credibility is low, but he was right and the administration was wrong about the presence of an imminent threat from Iraq. To me that INCREASES his credibility.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: kendall
Date: 10 Feb 04 - 04:47 PM

Al Franken is right


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Feb 04 - 05:17 PM

What isn't irrelevant is that Ritter was right, and Bush/Blair were wrong.

The IAEA--ie Hans Blix--was also right in saying that there was no evidence in Iraq of any of the WMD programs the Bush/Blair administrations were saying existed, prior to the pre-emptive, unprovoked invasion of this sovereign nation. The UN weapons inspectors also said, after Bush/Blair forced them to end their inspections on the eve of the invasion, that is was highly unlikely any WMD would be found in Iraq, because they had been successfully dismantled at the end of Gulf War I.

The UN was right. The UN weapons inspectors were right. Scott Ritter was right. The former ambassador to Iraq who challenged the Bush administration's claims was right. Wesley Clark was right--before the war! France and Germany and Russia were right.

But we are just supposed to overlook the fact that those who were saying there was not sufficient evidence to support WMDs or Hussein being an imminent military threat, were right and the Bush/Blair administrations were wrong?

I don't THINK so.

And don't give us that "we went with the best intelligence..." crap. Obviously, they didn't. If they had, they would have used the intelligence the UN was providing. And the French. And the Germans. And the Russians.

Turns out we were wrong. Imagine that. Too late now though, isn't it? Halliburton already won the contracts in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Nerd
Date: 10 Feb 04 - 05:27 PM

And, I may say, Howard Dean was right. If Wesley Clark should drop out of this race, I hope his supporters will consider supporting Dean.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Feb 04 - 07:03 PM

I am willing to admit Ritter was right and Kerry was remiss.

Ritter had little to lose and Kerry had everything (careerwise}to lose.

So what do we expect? Unswerving integrity from everybody all the time?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Gareth
Date: 10 Feb 04 - 07:16 PM

Hmmm ! On this basis Anon Guest, every Country, State, Boroiugh and Parish Council has the capability to manufacture Chemical Weapons.

Actually if I dug deep in the Kitchen, and the Garden Shed I have no doubt I could find the makings of a lethal chemical cocktail.

There are one or two inconvenient facts

1/. Unlike Saddam Hussain I do not boast about my ability to manufacture the same.

2/. Unlike Saddam Hussain I have not used chemical Weapons against other Countries and my own disidents.

3/. Unlike Saddam Hussain I have not invaded my neighbours.

4/. Unlike Saddam Hussain I have not excluded any independant inspectors, nor have I harried or harased any independant inspectors when I was forced to admit them.

Gareth.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Feb 04 - 07:27 PM

Yes, Gareth, but we all wait in fear for the moment when you WILL do those terrible things! And on the basis of that perfectly reasonable fear, we are going to mount a massive pre-emptive strike on your miserable lodgings within 30 (count 'em, baby!), 30 days...unless you surrender unconditionally, let us in anyway, and submit to immediate regime change. We know just what sort of evil you are up to, and we aren't going to sit idly by and let you get away with it. 'Fess up now, step down from your position of usurped power over your suffering household, and save yourself a whole lot of pain, buster! :-)

(the above is a joke, I hope you understand...)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Charley Noble
Date: 10 Feb 04 - 07:42 PM

I do think Nerd has a major point, that Kerry was wrong to provide political support for Bush's ultimatum to Saddam. I don't think Kerry is as wrong as Bush is on this issue and I applaude Dean for being on what turns out to have been the correct side; I'm not sure many of us were aware, however, of Dean's assessment at the time.

I do recall that the majority of the House Democrats went on record as opposed to the resolution, including Maine's Rep. Tom Allen.

Charley Noble


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Feb 04 - 08:07 PM

Yes, Kerry was wrong to support the invasion and occupation.

But Gareth, the US government was wrong to support Hussein's use of chemical weapons in the 1980s, too. We didn't care about his WMD back when he was fighting Iran.

Same with Afghanistan and supporting bin Laden.

We supported these terrorists, just like we are now supporting the Pakistan military regime, and their nuclear weapons program proliferating to some of the most despotic regimes in the world--hell--to Bush's "Axis of Evil"!!!

What say you to that, eh Gareth?

Why didn't we invade Pakistan, and destroy THEIR nuclear weapons program. We KNEW they had nukes. We KNEW they were giving the technology away to Libya, Iran, and North Korea.

So instead, we invade a country that doesn't have them, using as our justification the POSSIBILITY that Hussein MIGHT get them. Someday. Even though no one had ANY proof that they had these weapons for the better part of a decade???

How fucking stoooopid do ye think we are there, Gareth?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Metchosin
Date: 10 Feb 04 - 08:29 PM

Guest 8:07, maybe not Libya, if I recall correctly Libya supposedly got it's bits from Malaysia.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Metchosin
Date: 10 Feb 04 - 08:37 PM

Oh hell! bomb Canada, it supplied Pakistan with it's first nuclear reactor.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Feb 04 - 08:58 PM

Ah, Metchosin, have you been listening to the news in recent weeks on this?

Did you know that the Pakistan fall guy went on TV in Pakistan last week, took the heat off Musharaff and his generals, and formally apologized to the nation for selling the nuclear secrets (probably the worst kept secret in the non-proliferation community) to Libya, Iran, and North Korea?

Here is an excerpt from an article on it from today's Boston Globe:

"The confession last week by Abdul Qadeer Khan, the founder of Pakistan's nuclear program, that he had provided atomic secrets to Iran, Libya, and North Korea since the late 1980s was just the latest evidence that the international political and legal framework against proliferation needs to be overhauled.

"Dr. Khan is the tip of an iceberg," Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, told reporters Thursday. "We still have a lot of work to do. We have to make sure it will not be repeated."

ElBaradei and other IAEA officials have hailed recent successes in curtailing Iran's and Libya's nuclear ambitions. But these developments, the officials say, as well as unsuccessful efforts to persuade North Korea to disarm, have exposed weaknesses in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which since 1970 has been the main legal bulwark in international efforts to halt the spread of atomic arms."

You might remember Mr. ElBaradei. He was the other guy who worked with Hans Blix in Iraq, who testified to the UN Security Council after Colin Powell last year, and called the Bush/Blair Niger uranium claim bogus, right to Colin Powell's face and in front of the American TV cameras, no less.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Feb 04 - 10:50 PM

I'm pretty disturbed that you've uncovered our (Canada's) perfidious part in plotting on behalf of the Axis of Evil, Metchosin! I guess we are gonna have to get out the big guns now (meaning William Shatner), cos Bush is probably gonna feel obliged to take action against us soon.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Metchosin
Date: 10 Feb 04 - 11:43 PM

Sure I have Guest, and none of it comes as any surprise to those of us in Canada who have been so adamantly opposed to and publicly demonstrating against, Canada's nuclear policies for the past 40 years or so. Canada sold a 125-megawatt reactor to Pakistan in 1959 and a Candu reactor in 1964. Real bright idea.

But when you are enamoured with the technology and want to make a bundle to justify mucking about with it yourself, at horrendous expense of the Canadian taxpayer, you'll sell to anybody and they have. Or in Leher's words, "I just make them go up, who cares where they come down, its not my department, says Werner von Braun".

Candu Exports - India and Pakistan

As far as information going to Libya via Pakistan, yeah, so is that a surprise too? Why would anyone not believe that the little guys would want to play with the big boy's toys and bits and pieces to make it all a reality still came from Malaysia. The genie has been out of the bottle for a long time.

Now if they can just figure out what the Argentinians are really planning to do with theirs.....hmmmmm....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Metchosin
Date: 10 Feb 04 - 11:52 PM

I've got my phaser set for stun Little Hawk. The unfortunate thing is that we've got to somehow fix it ourselves, 'cause despite those that are hoping for the Rapture, there ain't anyone who's going to beam us out of here.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: LadyJean
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 12:02 AM

People are voting for Kerry because they think he can beat Bush. But he flip flopped on the Iraq war, and the Patriot Act and No Child Left Behind. If you don't think the Bush/Rove slime machine won't use that against him! They'll start the negative ads in July. Those ads aren't designed to bring your opponent's supporters into your camp. They're designed to keep people from voting.
I'm still working for Dean. I got no hope, but Kerry would be Clinton without the sex.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Nerd
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 01:10 AM

Gareth will hate me for this, but I must point this out. All of the horrible things you accuse Saddam of doing are things we have done in our history, too:

1/Unlike Saddam Hussain I do not boast about my ability to manufacture the same.

The US certainly has boasted about our Nuclear arms capability, in WWII and the cold war, and continue to use our nuclear capability to maintain our position of power in the world. Yet we consider it morally outrageous when another country tries to do what we have done.

2/. Unlike Saddam Hussain I have not used chemical Weapons against other Countries and my own disidents.

The US almost certainly used biological weapons (intentionally spread disease) to wipe out some of the Native American population. We have used vastly overpowered weapons against dissidents in places like Waco and West Philadelphia (the police flattened more than a square block because an African-American separatisst group occupied a single house in the 1980s).

3/. Unlike Saddam Hussain I have not invaded my neighbours.

Well, unless we include Mexico, from which we grabbed much of our land. And all the Indian territories, which used to be sovereign neighbors but now are part of the US because we slaughtered all their people and took their land by force. Yeah, Gareth, except for those, none of the many, many countries we have invaded have been neighbors.

4/. Unlike Saddam Hussain I have not excluded any independant inspectors, nor have I harried or harased any
independant inspectors when I was forced to admit them.

Uh, what do you mean by "independent inspectors?" Do you mean UN inspectors? Are you really one of those people that George Bush convinced that Saddam Hussein excluded the inspectors? The inspectors were allowed in, and mostly were not harried or harrassed. They were to some extent given a runaround on occasion. I know; let's invade their country and kill civilians in retaliation for a slow bureaucracy!

In any case, we are in violation of UN resolutions. Guess what? Nobody cares because we're so powerful! But let countries we don't like violate them, and they must comply or be invaded.

This is one reason why the world thinks American democracy isn't all it's cracked up to be. We're smug and self-righteous and act superior because we stopped doing certain unsavory things fifty years ago and other countries only stopped doing them twenty years ago.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Metchosin
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 01:46 AM

wow, a little bit of synchronicity going on, mentioned Tom Lehrer in one of my preceeding posts (of course, I spelled his name wrong) and then checked above the bar a little while ago, and there's a thread up about Tom Lehrer. Haven't thought about his stuff in quite a few years and then twice in one day.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 06:50 AM

Nerd,

As you initiated this thread, I take it that you decided on the title - Yes? You then reproduced the Scott Ritter article - mud-slinging.

Reading down through the posts I was amazed at what short memories people have. I asked Nerd a question:

"Now what had happened between Ritter's lobbying in the spring of 2000 and the summer of 2002, that might want the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to re-evaluate Iraq?"

Does the date 11th September 2001, ring any bells with anyone?

Now before we are swamped with loud protestations with regard to Iraq and Saddam having nothing to do with 911 - I clearly state, as I, and officials of your current administration have done since the outset, that Iraq and Saddam had absolutely nothing to do with 911.

Where that event does come into the picture relates to potential future threat - no-one has come up with any grounds for dispelling the likelyhood that Saddam could provide WMD, or WMD technology and know how to an international terrorist group that could target America. Remember that he, Saddam, was the only international leader in the world to publically applaud those attacks.

Having recently been attacked, those charged with the responsibility for the saftey and security of the United States of America, would have been extremely negligent if they had not reviewed all possible future threats, irrespective of from what quarter they might come - And that is precisely what they did.

Now in this evaluation of potential threat sources, where would you expect the current administration, US intelligence agencies and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to place Iraq in the order of priorities, given the public statements made by Saddam Hussein - Last, due to the information provided by Scott Ritter? If any of you think that that would have been the correct course to follow, then you are foolish to the extent that it beggars belief.

With respect to the working of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on which John Kerry sat (i.e. he was not the Chairman, he was not in charge of it), with regard to Iraq, what information did they have to go on in the summer of 2002:

- They knew that no inspections, or monitoring activity had been carried out by anyone for three and a half years.

- They knew of the unaccounted for stocks of WMD outstanding from the UNSCOM Report of January 1999. By the way, these stocks remain unaccounted for to this day, the fact that they have not been found does not mean that they do not, or did not, exist.

- They listened to witness testimony covering the subject of Iraqi WMD capabilities and programmes. The members of that committee were no doubt allowed to question those witnesses.

Even with counter arguements made by Scott Ritter, or whoever, I believe that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee would have decided in the manner that they eventually did. At the time the list of governments who fully believed that Saddam's Iraq held stockpiles of WMD included, USA; UK; France; Germany; Russia; China, etc, etc. So don't be too hard on Senator Kerry - or George W Bush. Of those countries, the USA was the only one that had been attacked, so it is quite understandable that when it came to threat evaluation their criteria was somewhat different to others. Of the "coalition-of-the-willing", as it came to be called, it is interesting to note that the staunchest allies of the US position were the UK, Italy and Spain, all European countries well acquainted with the results of terrorist activity.

Having made the evaluation, what was the USA's next move? They went to the UN, in order to put the matter beyond doubt, the US did not act unilaterally. During the seven months preceeding the war the UN did what it does best, it first prevaricated, then when stung into action it dragged it's heels and failed, once more, to implement the Resolutions it had passed. Having been down that road once before and subsequent to the attacks of 911, that simply was not good enough for the US and their allies - In adopting that point of view they were absolutely right.

Also Nerd, your response to the points that Gareth made - i.e. your post 11 Feb 04 - 01:10 AM

1/ So the US boasted about its atomic weapons during WW II - Don't think so, the Manhattan Project was one of the best kept secrets of the Second World War, it had to be, the Germans were too close to obtaining that weapon themselves, knowledge of the progress in the US might have prompted them to accelerate their programme. The Soviets were taken completely by surprise when it was used. After the Second World War the fact that the USA did proclaim its nuclear weapons capability kept the world at peace for damn near fifty years.

2/ Your remorse regarding the past fate of the Native American population is commendable. I suggest you salve your conscience, give whatever property you have to one of their descendents and return to land of your forefathers. I also believe that unlike the Iranians, and the Kurds at Halabja, those "dissidents" in Waco and West Philadelphia were given the opportunity to give themselves up - i.e. they had a choice, Saddam's victims didn't.

3/. Now lets see, the US bought Louisianna from the French, the inhabitants of Texas fought their own war of independence from Mexico then decided to throw in their lot with the US, California did the same. There may have been Indian Nations but there never was a sovereign Indian State. But like I have suggested give it all back and get out of where you obviously believe you have no moral right to reside - If you are not prepared to do that, then don't quote examples from 19th century history as being in any way relevant to 21st century situations.

4/. UNSCOM inspectors were withdrawn from Iraq by the UN in 1998 as they were being harrassed and obstructed, Iraq had withdrawn all co-operation in defiance of the terms they agreed to at Safwan (sp?) at the end of "Desert Storm". UNMOVIC inspectors were withdrawn by the UN on the advice of the US Government in March 2003. On this latter occasion I am pleased to see that you admit that, "They were to some extent given a runaround on occasion", because you see the conditions that those inspectors (UNMOVIC) went into Iraq specifically said that they were to receive the full and pro-active co-operation of the Iraq authorities, failure to do so was to be considered a "material breach" of UNSC Resolution 1441.

With regard to your closing remarks in this particular post - By and large, the standing of the United States of America, in the eyes of most of the world over the past fifty years, has been that it is generally regarded as a bastion of democracy and freedom, and has done more to ensure world peace and to relieve suffering in this world than any other country.

Don't know how well travelled you are Nerd but I reckon I have toddled round this world about two and a half times over the past forty years. Seen lots of US Care and US Aid Supplies in the form of food, etc, in places that were described by the world's press as being "troubled". In those same places those doing the "troubling" were equipped with AK-47's and rumbling about the countryside in T-54 tanks (no prizes for saying where they came from).

To GUEST 10 Feb 04 - 05:17 PM

What is Ritter was right about? The WMD that he said were there are still unaccounted for. Now put yourself in the position of Bush/Blair in 2002, do you honestly mean to tell me that you would have ignored the UNSCOM report - if you would what would have been your grounds for doing so?

By the way, Dr. Hans Blix has got nothing to do with the IAEA - he never has. But that serves as an indication of your knowledge on the subject and extent of your research into this matter.

So there was no evidence in Iraq of any of the WMD programs the Bush/Blair administrations were saying existed. I can recall two instances, found by Dr. Blix's UNMOVIC inspectors, both of which were reported to the UN Security Council.

The UNMOVIC inspectors, on their departure from Iraq gave three possible reasons for it being highly unlikely any WMD would be found in Iraq, they were as follows:

1. Because they were too well hidden
2. Because they had been removed
3. Because they had been "unofficially" destroyed at the end of Desert Storm in such a manner that their destruction could not be verified.

As to who believed that Iraq possessed WMD in March 2003 we have the following:

- UNMOVIC
- The United Nations Security Council
- USA; UK; France; Germany; Russia; Turkey; Kuwait; Saudi Arabia
- The Shia and Kurdish population of Iraq

The only difference of opinion between any of the above related to what threat those weapons and Iraq's capability posed.

Come on Guest, don't keep it secret, what intelligence was being provided by the UN, the French, the Germans and the Russians?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 08:30 AM

Teribus, did you know that most of us never read your stupid blather?

Hint: if you don't want to be ignored, stop regurgitating the Cheney/Bush mantra "Have you ever heard of 9/11" and then start the Big Lies rolling.

Most people in this forum aren't as easily manipulated by militaristic appeals to faux patriotism as the stupid Bubbas and NASCAR dads. We see the emperors parading around without clothes, and have the guts to say so.

Michael Moore's website has a link to this excellent article at the New York Review of Books, that chronicles the abrogation of duty among American journalists in the lead up to the invasion last year. It is a very long article, but meticulously researched. It names names too, something quite rare in this day and age of pack journalism.

Here it is:

How the press let Bush, Cheney and the rest get away with the lies.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 08:36 AM

Kerry is a Yankee liberal, and Clinton is a conservative Southern Democrat of the old school sort. I really don't see Kerry as Clinton without the sex at all. That sounds like sound bite silliness from someone supporting a candidate that isn't Kerry.

I don't trust Kerry either, but then, the only candidate I do trust is Kucinich, and he has a serious charisma deficit, so you can't exactly get fired up about the guy, no matter how decent his politics are.

We've been sending financial contributions to both Kerry and Dean for the better part of the year, and been telling both camps that is what we are doing. I am heartened to see that Kerry has gotten with the anti-war program for the moment. But I don't trust him. However, I most definitely will vote for him to get the Cheney/Bush crooks out.

Odd isn't it, that the Democratic electorate is so unified, so psyched, so energized, yet for some reason the punditocracy didn't even have this widespread hatred of the White House occupants on their radar until two weeks ago?

Gee, all the polls said Americans just LOVE the job the president is doing...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Nerd
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 09:30 AM

Teribus,

You've misunderstood the point of my post. I was saying that the 19th century examples are irrelevant in exactly the same way that calling up examples of things Saddam did while we supported him with money and weapons was irrelevant. He gassed the Kurds! Well, Gareth's sympathy is commendable, but why didn't Gareth say anything WHEN IT HAPPENED instead of years later once Saddam was no longer a CIA "Asset?" And your arguments that sympathy for slaughtered Indians is only appropriate in people willing to go back to the 19th century is exactly what people would expect from you: neither logic nor feeling.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 10:01 AM

GUEST 11 Feb 04 - 08:30 AM

What "us" are you referring to?

GUEST 10 Feb 04 - 05:17 PM
GUEST 10 Feb 04 - 07:03 PM
GUEST 10 Feb 04 - 08:07 PM
GUEST 10 Feb 04 - 08:58 PM

The same "us", that sees the emperor parading around without clothes, and have the guts to say so, but completely lacks the "guts" to put an identifying suffix to Guest so that those reading this thread can pick out which of the above are your posts. Must be a marked shortage of "guts" among you "us"'s that you have to ration them so.

As far as your own post (11 Feb 04 - 08:30 AM) goes you are idiotic enough to clearly state that you (as one of the gutsy "us"'s) can't be bothered to read my post - then have the gall to accuse me of lying. Speaks volumes about you, as does your propensity to quote the contents of Michael Moore's web site as being the font of all truth - you, dear GUEST 11 Feb 04 - 08:30 AM, are just one of the bloody sheep, you wouldn't know an original thought if it jumped up and bit you on the arse.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 10:21 AM

Take a chill pill, Teri

Guest,


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 10:23 AM

Nerd,

The point Gareth was making was perfectly clear, while some countries do possess these weapons, their individual track record strongly indicates that they would not employ or misuse use them. Gareth in his post listed Iraq and Saddam Hussein's behaviour with regard to those weapons. In any evaluation of potential threat, that track record becomes highly significant.

I don't believe that Saddam Hussein has ever been considered as a "CIA Asset".

Sorry about the lack of feeling, but in reading through our posts, not surprisingly, I would tend to say that mine are constructed rationally and logically - in this sort of exercise emotion doesn't come into it.

By the bye, if you do want to know who should accept full responsibility for the war, it is bloody obvious - SADDAM HUSSEIN.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 10:26 AM

In your humble opinion, you mean.

Guest


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Nerd
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 11:34 AM

Teribus:

There was a good deal of illogic in your previous post that I ignored. For example, your defense of our takeover of half of Mexico by pointing out that separate countries (California and Texas) did that, then merged with the US later. But the invaders who established the Texas and California "republics" were white anglo-Americans. So all you're saying is that the US government allowed its citizens to invade and attack other countries independently, then validated those invasions by allowing the countries thus established back into the US. Convenient, but it still amounts to an invasion.

There is also inaccuracy: There may have been Indian Nations but there never was a sovereign Indian State.

The US signed treaties with Indian nations that made them sovereign states, then violated those treaties later. In the landmark 1832 Worcester V. Georgia decision, for example, the US found that

From the commencement of our government Congress has passed acts to regulate trade and intercourse with the Indians; which treat them as nations, respect their rights, and manifest a firm purpose to afford that protection which treaties stipulate. All these acts, and especially that of 1802, which is still in force, manifestly consider the several Indian nations as distinct political communities, having territorial boundaries, within which their authority is exclusive, and having a right to all the lands within those boundaries, which is not only acknowledged, but guaranteed by the United States. . . .

The Cherokee Nation, then, is a distinct community, occupying its own territory, with boundaries accurately described, in which the laws of Georgia can have no force, and which the citizens of Georgia have no right to enter but with the assent of the Cherokees themselves or in conformity with treaties and with the acts of Congress. The whole intercourse between the United States and this nation is, by our Constitution and laws, vested in the government of the United States.


In other words, the Cherokee Nation is a separate state, and as such only the government of the United States is of equal stature, and only the Government of the United States can negotiate with them.

The fact that we decided these treaties were inconvenient does not mean they were never there.

Anyway, on to the next post:

while some countries do possess these weapons, their individual track record strongly indicates that they would not employ or misuse use them.

That was true of the Soviets, less true of us. We are the only country to have used nuclear weapons, for example. But we constantly acted as if the Soviets were a bigger threat. Now I'm not saying I admire the Stalinist purges or anything, but you have to understand the rest of the world's reluctance to trust America now that we have a doctrine of "pre-emptive war."

I don't believe that Saddam Hussein has ever been considered as a "CIA Asset".

Indeed he was. He was one of a group of people used by the US to monitor the Qasim regime, and according to many sources was part of the US engineered assassination attempt on Qasim in 1959. According to UPI intelligence reporter Richard Sale (see the article here):

According to another former senior State Department official, Saddam, while only in his early 20s, became a part of a U.S. plot to get rid of Qasim. According to this source, Saddam was installed in an apartment in Baghdad on al-Rashid Street directly opposite Qasim's office in Iraq's Ministry of Defense, to observe Qasim's movements.

Adel Darwish, Middle East expert and author of "Unholy Babylon," said the move was done "with full knowledge of the CIA," and that Saddam's CIA handler was an Iraqi dentist working for CIA and Egyptian intelligence. U.S. officials separately confirmed Darwish's account.

Darwish said that Saddam's paymaster was Capt. Abdel Maquid Farid, the assistant military attache at the Egyptian Embassy who paid for the apartment from his own personal account. Three former senior U.S. officials have confirmed that this is accurate.

The assassination was set for Oct. 7, 1959, but it was completely botched. Accounts differ. One former CIA official said that the 22-year-old Saddam lost his nerve and began firing too soon, killing Qasim's driver and only wounding Qasim in the shoulder and arm.


Hussein was whisked away by us and the Egyptians into Syria, Lebanon and Egypt.

While Saddam was in Beirut, the CIA paid for Saddam's apartment and put him through a brief training course, former CIA officials said. The agency then helped him get to Cairo, they said.

We helped along the Baathist takeover as well. Though we did not initiate the coup, we provided the Baathists with lists of suspected communists, whom they hunted down and killed. We were probably not directly responsible for Hussein coming to power either; he did that in a "Palace Coup." But he maintained friendly relations with the US for years thereafter, receiving aid and comfort that allowed him to gas the Kurds with little more than an angry word from us.

He had always considered Kuwait to be part of Iraq in much the same way that that the PRC considers Taiwan to be part of China. When about to invade Kuwait and press his claim, he contacted the US Embassy to make sure we would not object. He met with April Glaspie, and had this conversation (the transcript is Iraqui, but it jibes well with Glaspie's own cable of the event).

Saddam Hussein - As you know, for years now I have made every effort to reach a settlement on our dispute with Kuwait. There is to be a meeting in two days; I am prepared to give negotiations only this one more brief chance. (pause) When we (the Iraqis) meet (with the Kuwaitis) and we see there is hope, then nothing will happen. But if we are unable to find a solution, then it will be natural that Iraq will not accept death.

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - What solutions would be acceptable?

Saddam Hussein - If we could keep the whole of the Shatt al Arab - our strategic goal in our war with Iran - we will make concessions (to the Kuwaitis). But, if we are forced to choose between keeping half of the Shatt and the whole of Iraq (i.e., including Kuwait ) then we will give up all of the Shatt to defend our claims on Kuwait to keep the whole of Iraq in the shape we wish it to be. (pause) What is the United States' opinion on this?

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America.


So we essentially gave Saddam permission to invade Kuwait, then reversed our decision days later and decided he was, in the current Bush's words, "a Madman."

So the point is, you're wrong about that too.

By the way, it's interesting that the only people enthusiastically defending Kerry on this thread are likely to vote for Bush. I worry what this may presage for the general election, when Nader is challenging from the left and unenthusiastic democrats might stay home.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 01:40 PM

Very good Nerd, very good.

California and Texas were "invaded" by white anglo-americans were they? Quite a good proportion of the white europeans in Texas were already there, Scots who having left Scotland and who did not wish to live under British rule in Canada were one rather large group.

Regarding your quotes relating to the 1832 Worcester v Georgia decision. You omit to clarify that what you quote is not the wording of a Treaty but the judgement of US Supreme Court Justice Marshall, and it also omits the fact that this judgement did not supercede the terms of the 1830 Indian Removal Act.

Next point in which you are attempting to say that the USA was a greater threat to world peace during the "cold war" than the Soviet Union. Of course they did not liberate eastern european countries, ruthlessly crush all opposition parties and supplant the governments of those countries with their own puppet communist regimes. They did not close off the borders of those countries with those countries in europe, fortunate enough to have been liberated from the west. They did not threaten Yugoslavia with invasion for accepting Marshall Aid. They did not try to force the other allied powers out of Berlin. They did not ruthlessly put down a workers strike in Berlin, or a popular uprising in Hungary. They did not invade Czechosolvakia, they did not try to forment trouble anywhere and everywhere in the world that they could. Now I wonder where I actually was where I observed all that going on.

By the way, the doctrine of "pre-emptive war" has been an established reality since the USSR acquired nuclear weapons. What has countered that has been the developement of, first, "second strike capability", and second, the principle of "Mutually Assured Destruction".

As to whether, or not, Saddam Hussein was ever a "CIA Asset", it is a pity you didn't print the whole article - it is pretty obvious from that article that he Saddam was in the pay of the Egyptians, that the CIA at the time were working with the Egyptians is not disputed, but that is not the same as saying that Saddam Hussein knowingly worked for the CIA . You also fail to point out that once Qasim was overthrown and The Ba'athist faction to which Saddam belonged took power, there were no diplomatic ties with the US between 1967 and mid to late 1980's, the contacts, both diplomatically and militarily, forged with Russia continued throughout that period - so that does not quite equate with Saddam and Iraq maintaining friendly relations with the US for years thereafter. The condemnation of the attack at Halabja were universally condemned by a great number of nations throughout the world, unfortunately playing by the United Nations rules that was just about all anybody could do.

As to Kuwait, it has never been part of Iraq, it was never even part of the Caliphate of Baghdad in the days of the Ottoman Empire (It paid taxes to the Caliph of Baghdad for protection, there is a bit of a difference). Even before the start of the First World War, the ruler of Kuwait put Kuwait under the protection of the British. Iraq has signed a number of treaties recognising the sovereignty of Kuwait, which kind of rips apart your contention that he thought Kuwait was part of Iraq (I thought you believed in treaties?). A parallel in the history of Britain, England has always thought of Scotland and wales being theirs, them thinking that, and that being the case are two very different things.

Oh, the conversation between Saddam and the US Ambassador (In which Saddam was given the "green light", nudge, nudge, wink, wink). As can be seen from the reaction of that lady's superiors back in Washington - She Fucked Up - and both she and Saddam were told that in no uncertain terms within days of that interview taking place. On that issue I am wrong about damn all.

Thanks for the information I didn't know that Nader was running, must admire that lad's stamina - and sense of humour.

One thing I did uncover as I was scrambling about, that I was unaware of before and has not been mentioned anywhere else, and this might have been of interest to the current US administration, US intelligence agencies and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In January 1999 UNSCOM reported to the United Nations, in February 1999, Russia signed a contract with Iraq to upgrade Iraq's air force, wonder why they thought they might that doing??


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 01:48 PM

Gareth:

Saddam Hussein _didn't_ kick out the inspectors in 1998.
They were pulled voluntarily while Clinton was preparing
military strikes.

And Dubya's (twice-repeated) claim that Saddam didn't let
the inspectors in has to rank as the most astounding public
hallucination exhibited by a head of state in recent memory.

Cheers,

                         -- Arne Langsetmo


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 02:37 PM

Gareth - hmmm. (To quote your favourite word.) What you boast about, or don't, has nothing to do with it. And what's so special about Saddam using chemical weapons against his enemies? What was the US doing in Vietnam?

Teribus, could you enlarge on that observation you made near the top: Iraq's support for foreign terrorist groups is known and maybe give one or two sources? (I notice you're still prepared to rely on the BBC when it suits your argument.) And while you're on the subject, could you explain why 9/11 would give the Senate Foreign Relations Committee cause to re-evaluate the relationship with Iraq? Any Al Qaeda activity in Iraq would seem to have come after (and no doubt because of) the US invasion. Saddam and Bin Laden were not exactly buddies, for fairly obvious reasons.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: DougR
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 02:40 PM

Teribus: pay no attention to Guest. Most of us don't read his/her posts anyway.

And there you go again, confusing us folks with facts.

DougR


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 03:16 PM

So, let's recap then...

Who exactly is allowed to have WMD's?
Pakistan lied about their role in all of this, and nobody seems to be seriously thinking of going in to unseat Musharraf.

Is it one law for the haves, and one law for the have-nots, I wonder?

What do you reckon, DougR?

Guest


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: GUEST, the third
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 04:01 PM

"...but in reading through our posts, not surprisingly, I would tend to say that mine are constructed rationally and logically..."

Talk about having an overbloated opinion of yourself....

They should call you Teribush


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Gareth
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 04:44 PM

Hmmm ! - I think there is a difference between "Agent Orange" - a defoliant, and incapacitating gasses. And for good measure the intent of use.

However I see no logic in comparison, two wrongs to not make a right.

I am concerned with the spread of WMD's, even "pocket versions", at the present time Pakistan and most other states believd to be inpossesion of these are responsive to diplomatic presure, not an acusation that could have been laid at Saddam Hussain.

(And yes I am aware of the now known properties of Agent Orange, that is why good old British Rail stopped using varients as a trackside defoliant. I take it no pedant is going to accuse British Rail of using chemical weapons against it's staff and passengers)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Gareth
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 07:11 PM

Oooops! - Nerd - I missed it on the first reading - possibly submerged in the blether - Fortunatley your hysteria in another thread prompted me to go back and read again.

As a point of record I did protest about the gassing of the Kurds and other dissedents, not that it had any effect on Margret Thatchers support for SH. Indeed Ann Clwyd MP organised several "public meetings" on the subject. Unlike those in the US of A who only took an interest in Iraqui matters when GWB Jnr did one of the few decent things of his life.

And I speak as a Welshman, one of those that B***H condemed as the "Enemy Within"

Gareth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 08:52 PM

According to another former senior State Department official, Saddam, while only in his early 20s, became a part of a U.S. plot to get rid of Qasim.

Adel Darwish, Middle East expert and author of "Unholy Babylon," said the move was done "with full knowledge of the CIA," and that Saddam's CIA handler was an Iraqi dentist working for CIA and Egyptian intelligence. U.S. officials separately confirmed Darwish's account.


--Nerd

As to whether, or not, Saddam Hussein was ever a "CIA Asset", it is a pity you didn't print the whole article - it is pretty obvious from that article that he Saddam was in the pay of the Egyptians, that the CIA at the time were working with the Egyptians is not disputed, but that is not the same as saying that Saddam Hussein knowingly worked for the CIA .

--Terribus

If it was a US plot, and if he had a CIA handler, I think we can safely say he was working on behalf of, or at the behest of the CIA, regardless of who signed his paycheck.


And there you go again, confusing us folks with facts.

--DougR

I don't think those are facts he's trying to confuse us with there, DougR.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Feb 04 - 02:17 AM

There is an obscure law in England, which permits the killing of Welshmen after midnight, with a bow and arrow within the city walls of Chester.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Nerd
Date: 12 Feb 04 - 03:04 AM

Gareth,

Thank you for accusing me of hysteria. I always like it when things remain civil.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Nerd
Date: 12 Feb 04 - 03:22 AM

Now for Teribus; my replies follow excerpts of your statements.

California and Texas were "invaded" by white anglo-americans were they? Quite a good proportion of the white europeans in Texas were already there, Scots who having left Scotland and who did not wish to live under British rule in Canada were one rather large group.

To claim the republic of Texas was not an Anglo-American establishment is absurd. Almost all the civil and military leaders were American. Sam Houston was born in Virginia, Jim Bowie in Kentucky, James Fannon in Georgia, Ed Burleson in North Carolina, Ben Milam in Kentucky, William Travis in South Carolina, etc., etc. The Texas Declaration of Independence very specifically states that the independent Texans were separating from Mexico in order to "continue to enjoy that constitutional liberty and republican government to which they had been habituated in the land of their birth, the United States of America. Funny, but Scotland isn't mentioned in there at all.

In other words, they set up the Republic of Texas in order to be Anglo-Americans living under American laws, which is why they allowed themselves to be annexed by the U.S. a mere nine years later.

It is true that the Mexicans allowed the Anglo-American settlers initially to come in, settle, and become Mexican. But it turns out they didn't want to be Mexican, they wanted to be American. So they attacked Mexican forces, took over the land, and joined back up with the US. This would be like a group of my friends deciding to "emigrate" to Canada, settling there, then forming an army, starting a war, taking over a bunch of land, and giving it freely to the U.S. as a 51st state. I think the Canadians would consider that an invasion orchestrated by Americans.


Regarding your quotes relating to the 1832 Worcester v Georgia decision. You omit to clarify that what you quote is not the wording of a Treaty but the judgement of US Supreme Court Justice Marshall, and it also omits the fact that this judgement did not supercede the terms of the 1830 Indian Removal Act.

Huh? When did I say it was the wording of a treaty? I said it was a decision. I also fail to see the relevance of the Removal Act, which was in violation of the very treaties this SC decision upheld. As I said before, just because these treaties had become inconvenient, and were ultimately illegally violated by the US, does not mean they never existed.

So to reiterate: In 1832 the Supreme Court found that the Cherokee Nation was a sovereign country, and by the way specifically cited a previous 1802 law that was in force BEFORE the Removal Act you mention.

Next point in which you are attempting to say that the USA was a greater threat to world peace during the "cold war" than the Soviet Union.

Boy, it's annoying when you try to tell people what they're attempting to say. It's a well-known power tactic in verbal jiu jitsu, but I won't fall for it. What I was attempting to say was exactly what I said: that judging by our record of past action, the US was more likely to employ WMD than the USSR. We had used an atomic bomb, the USSR never had. That's a pretty clear record.

As to whether, or not, Saddam Hussein was ever a "CIA Asset", it is a pity you didn't print the whole article - it is pretty obvious from that article that he Saddam was in the pay of the Egyptians, that the CIA at the time were working with the Egyptians is not disputed, but that is not the same as saying that Saddam Hussein knowingly worked for the CIA .

Irrelevant. I said he was a CIA asset. Asset is a term for anyone from whom the CIA regularly extracts intel, whether they know it or not. Some of our greatest assets are the folks who don't know they are giving us intel: spies whose cover is blown, etc. My point was that, for many years Saddam was being handled and run by the CIA. Many of his successes and those of his party were orchestrated by us. And, the article makes it pretty clear that he DID know of our involvement at some points; for example, when we encouraged him to demand a raise from the Egyptians! Certainly after the Baathist takeover he was aware of our friendly stance toward him, as we supplied intel on the suspected communists so he could have a Stalin-style purge. Thanks, Uncle Sam!

If I had said he was an agent, that would have been a different matter.

As to Kuwait, it has never been part of Iraq (...) A parallel in the history of Britain, England has always thought of Scotland and wales being theirs, them thinking that, and that being the case are two very different things.

Also irrelevant. I was not saying that Saddam's claims on Kuwait were valid, merely that he viewed the matter as a border dispute and that April Glaspie agreed with him. In much the same way, the US doesn't openly intervene in the troubles in Northern Ireland. That doesn't imply that British claims are valid, and it doesn't imply they aren't.

Oh, the conversation between Saddam and the US Ambassador (In which Saddam was given the "green light", nudge, nudge, wink, wink). As can be seen from the reaction of that lady's superiors back in Washington - She Fucked Up - and both she and Saddam were told that in no uncertain terms within days of that interview taking place. On that issue I am wrong about damn all.

Oops, you put a word in the wrong place. You must have meant to say "I am damn wrong about all." :-)

Glaspie said to the head of state of the country to which she was the US ambassador that she had received specific instructions from the US Secretary of State on the matter. I find it hard to believe she was lying. I find it much easier to believe the administration hung her out to dry after it decided to re-classify Saddam as a "madman."

Thanks for the information I didn't know that Nader was running, must admire that lad's stamina - and sense of humour.

He has not announced this yet, but I suspect he will.

One thing I did uncover as I was scrambling about, that I was unaware of before and has not been mentioned anywhere else, and this might have been of interest to the current US administration, US intelligence agencies and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In January 1999 UNSCOM reported to the United Nations, in February 1999, Russia signed a contract with Iraq to upgrade Iraq's air force, wonder why they thought they might that doing??

Wonder what you thought you might that saying?? (sorry, I couldn't resist. But I really don't know what you are trying to imply!)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Gareth
Date: 12 Feb 04 - 06:46 AM

So Nerd - If Saddam Hussain was a creation of the US of A ? Does that not give the US of A a moral duty to dispose of him ????

Gareth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Feb 04 - 06:53 AM

Got any children, Gareth...??????????????????


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Feb 04 - 07:12 AM

Nerd,

In intelligence terms an "Asset" is someone you "own" and control. The article you quoted from clearly shows that Sadam Hussein was an Egyptian asset, who, when it was required, was assisted by the CIA.

The US Ambassador in Iraq, was simply that, her country's representative in that country. For her to speak on behalf of her country, on such a matter, she would have had to have been granted plenipotentionary powers, those she certainly did not have, as her mistake was corrected almost immediately by her superiors.

Sorry Nerd I was wondering why the Iraqi's might want to have their air force upgraded immediately after the UN inspection teams had been withdrawn. The upgrade if carried out then elevates whatever capability the Iraqi's have from tactical to strategic.

The conditions and situation that prompted the US to develope, construct and use the atomic bomb were what? Did they develope it in peacetime then use it to threaten and subjugate another country - No they did not. It was developed during time of war and used in order to force Japan's surrender without there having to be an opposed landing on the Japanese mainland (i.e. in order to save allied lives). It was developed in time of war because as early as 1941 it was known that the Germans were working to develope the same weapon (here the choice was a bit starker, and the motivation greater, get it first or lose the war).

If you actually believe that, "judging by our record of past action, the US was more likely to employ WMD than the USSR.", perhaps you could explain why, in the period before the USSR obtained their bomb, they didn't use it when temptation and opportunity presented itself.

Peter K,

Under Saddam Hussein's leadership Iraq supported the following foreign terrorist groups:
- MKO, active in Iran
- PLF, active in Palestine/Israel
- ALF, active in Palestine/Israel
- Abu Nidal Organisation, international
- PKK, active in Turkey

The support provided included, provision of safe haven, finance, training facilities, arms and explosives, and medical attention. Sources - just Google "Iraq support of terrorist groups".

In general there is nothing wrong with the BBC as a news service, in the Gilligan/WMD fiasco, I believe that they, the BBC, were in error.

I believe that post 9/11 the US evaluated the potential threat posed by a number of states that were known to sponser terrorist groups in general, not necessarily Al-Qaeda . Why Iraq in particular? Because the disarmament and inspection effort required by the UN had foundered completely, the likelyhood of Saddam Hussein providing material and know how to such groups could not be ignored.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Feb 04 - 08:31 AM

Has Teribus ever actually been to Michael Moore's website? One very good reason to go there, is because the webmaster there provides links to articles on the Internet from a wide variety of sources.

The actual article I provide a link to above is actually one published by the New York Review of Books.

Perhaps Teribus is not familiar with them, but because the link can be found at Michael Moore's website, has pre-emptively decided that the NYRB must not be a legitimate source of information.

Like I said, I think Teribus makes a good NASCAR Bubba.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: GUEST,another guest
Date: 12 Feb 04 - 08:46 AM

I think Teribus is a sheep


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate
Next Page

 


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.



Mudcat time: 6 December 8:23 PM EST

[ Home ]

All original material is copyright © 1998 by the Mudcat Café Music Foundation, Inc. All photos, music, images, etc. are copyright © by their rightful owners. Every effort is taken to attribute appropriate copyright to images, content, music, etc. We are not a copyright resource.