Thursday, August 04, 2005

response to those on the wrong side of things

The following comments were in response to a website called Right Wing News. The comments from Right Wing News are in quotes.

"Given all that, how any informed person can buy into Lancet's numbers is simply beyond me."

The larger point is this: if we are there to bring the Iraqi people freedom and democracy, how come this administration is making NO efforts to record and document the number and type and severity of civilian casualties and civilian suffering? This speaks volumes.

"Furthermore, after the war had begun, in September of 2003, President Bush himself publicly & explicitly said: "We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 11 September attacks." It doesn't get much clearer than that."

You are right, it doesn't get much clearer than that, even though Bush mentioned terrorism about 33 times in his speech last month to bolster support for the Iraq war. Why are we in Iraq? WHY HAVEN'T WE CAUGHT BIN LADEN?

"The problem with trying to claim that the war in Iraq was preordained during some 1998 PNAC meeting is that the United States government has been trying to find a way to get rid of Saddam Hussein since the Gulf War."

Go read PNAC. They are interested in way more than the Middle East. If you have no morals and want to get rich, buy stock in companies like Lockheed Martin. The time to do something about Saddam was early 1980's. Reagan blew it. Rumsfeld was buddy-buddy with Saddam back then. Oh, and who was it that thought we should have a proxy war against the Russians in Afghanistan???? That turned out not to be such a great idea, arming and training Bin Laden's group. But for those with no morals and the right stocks, it was financially very rewarding.

"Why are we going to invade Iraq? Nine days after 9/11, George Bush said, "(W)e will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."

Does this mean that Bush is going to do some shock and awe on Britain? They clearly have terrorists there, and if we bomb them to rubble, that will take care of that problem.

"Kerry even pointed out that he thought Saddam might give WMDs to terrorists."

Do you really think Kerry is that stupid? Or Bush? How come some right-wingers like you think the "Democrats are stupid, too!" is a valid argument? It makes you look stupid to argue that Democrats are as stupid as Republicans, because, frankly, neither group is stupid. And the political posturing done to make them look like they are really fighting each other is for the stupid American’s entertainment. It serves no other real purpose. Meanwhile, they get rich.
'The man who blew up the World Trade Center in 1993 was sheltered by Saddam Hussein'
I don't know about the rest of Hitchen's claims, but this one isn't true.

"What the 9/11 Commission was trying to get across was that there was no evidence that Saddam and Al-Qaeda collaborated on specific attacks, not that they didn't have a working relationship."

If they had a working relationship then they would have collaborated on attacks. That's what terrorism is: attacking civilians to inspire terror. It is not about garden parties or charity balls.

“Consider this comment by former CIA Director George Tenet in a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee on October 7, 2002: "Credible reporting states that al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs."

That would be the same Tenet that said finding the WMDs in Iraq would be a "slam dunk".

"Here's more from Richard Miniter, author of "Losing Bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror": "

Hey, remember when Clinton wanted to bomb Afghanistan to get Bin Laden and the Republicans said he was "wagging the dog" to detract from his Oval Office blowjob? I'm glad Clinton didn't bomb Bin Laden because I am sure that he (like Bush) would have killed civilians. Do you think Bush is at all concerned about the civilians who died in the bombing of Iraq? No, I don't think so either. By the way, I know a couple of Americans who were in Baghdad in the summer and fall of 2003 and they met a baby whose parents, siblings and aunts were bombed to death in April 2003 by US bombs. The baby was thrown from the house and landed in a puddle in a neighbor's yard. They call her the "miracle baby" since she survived and no one else in her family did. That was one of the "surgical strikes" to get Saddam. The family had never even talked to Saddam, much less had him in their home. Do you think anyone will bomb you in your home one day?

“We had already been bombing the Iraqis in the no-fly zone and we increased the pace to soften them up a bit just in case we had to go in. It probably saved the lives of some of our soldiers and almost no one except members of Saddam's government seemed upset about it while it was actually going on."

That bombing killed civilians too, and I (for one) was upset about it. Why did we need to "soften them up"? Didn't we have the superior military? Do you think the 9/11 attacks and the London bombings were to "soften us up"? I know for a fact that lots of Iraqis were upset about the US bombings all along. I would be upset too if someone dropped (or set off) bombs in my country. How about you?

"Bush, like a lot of other people, was wrong about Saddam Hussein having stockpiles of WMDs. But without question, he did not lie about it."

Now, if I started a war that turned out to be over a bunch of baloney about invisible WMDs.... and I didn't lie about it.....I'd be pissed off as all hell at the fools who mislead me. I'd fire Tenet for his stupid comments about "slam-dunk". I'd damn sure fire a heck of a lot more people than just Tenet. But, I'm an audiologist. And I knew they were not going to find any nuclear WMDs in Iraq. That was very clear. And, it was unlikely they would find any other kind of WMDs there, but if they did, those weapons would not be able to hurt the USA. And, amazingly enough, most of the countries around Iraq did not feel threatened at all, and did not support a war. What's up with that? I remember Powell and Rice claiming in 2001 that Saddam was contained and not a threat. Funny how nobody else in DC remembers that. I knew Powell's presentation at the UN in 2003 was based on heresy and circumstantial evidence. The rest of the world (outside of the USA) figured that out too, which was why the UN did not pass a resolution to go to war in Iraq. I remember people like Cheney and Rumsfeld and Tenet saying they knew where the WMDs were - yet they would not tell the UN inspectors. Now, why was that?

Could it be they wanted a war, no matter what? And did all those Democrats who also claimed to believe all this WMD nonsense also feel that way? I sat in on a public US Senate Armed Services Committee meeting last month, and it was all about POLITICAL POSTURING and damn little else. Little concern about the troops, none for the Iraqi people that we are supposedly bringing "freedom and democracy" to (and I don't believe that one either), but lots of concern about how the American public is starting to NOT support this war - which impacts on their REELECTION PROSPECTS.

There is not a dime's worth of difference between most of the Republicans and the Democrats up in DC today. And none of them were so stupid to really think there was a treat in Iraq to the USA, no matter how they lie or how they act. And the majority of them (Cheney and Edwards, for sure) made a great deal of money off this war while their kids don't serve. Think about it. Either they lied, or they were very STUPID. Do you really think they are that STUPID with all that wealth they have?

No comments: