WMDs - Words of Mass Deception

[13788]

longtimelurker: [quote author=Maximillian link=board=99;num=1058058510;start=60#76 date=09/29/03 at 18:27:13]
So who gives a damn as to the motivation as long as these people are saved from this? This is being turned into a Bush Administration hate fest instead. Thats the whole trouble with this planet, so fast to hate, so slow to love.
[/quote]

Personally I was anti-war before it started and am still anti-war (or at least, how it was gone about) now. However, I read in the Independent (UK newspaper) today of a recent poll whereby 66% of Iraqis asked said that their current problems were worth it seeing that they are now rid of Saddam.

The question is: how much of the current suffering would have been avoided if more time had been taken to think out the consequences and to plan the humanitarian situation properly before barging in guns blazing? Remember, the American and British casualties which make the headlines are currently in the low 100's, but Iraqi deaths which the media seem so keen to ignore are at least 30-fold that.

I find it quite ironic that if Bush and Blair had been more honest from the outset of wanting to oust Saddam for regime change due to the gross crimes to humanity that were committed under his name, then they would probably have had a much easier ride than basing their entire aim on shaky evidence on (probably) non-existant WMD.

 

[13788]

hawl: Just thought I should say I'm still healthy as a horse and Karl Rove has not even attempted to whisk me away to an "undisclosed location". Jay_too gets mad props for discussing the "Wilsongate" story here in this thread 'bout 4 days before the mighty rrrrrr, and about 2 and 1/2 months before the "major media" decided it was an ongoing front-page story. Am I the only one picturing irate Ed Asner types in newsrooms across the country (globe?) demanding their staffs to "tell me why I have to read about this first from the LPSG?" 8)? As someone who just isn't that much of a "liberal" (I think jonb will provide some support for that statement ) it has been sad though interesting to see Republicans and their journalist allies attempt to spin the unspinnable and/or ignore the unignorable. The record of these guys is shocking in its appearance of incompetence, not just partisanship, and the reactions of so many in the past few days (after the story had been out there, basically unchanged, for 2 and 1/2 months) will provide grist for those who seek their jobs. This is (much more than the Trent Lott squabble) a perfect chance for young conservatives to clean house and say "See ya, never wanted to be ya.". Anyway, this story appears strong enough that I think we can assume there would have been a resignation by now if the consequences weren't so potentially serious for the ultimate fall guy(s). Here's a nice link to remind us of how the Republicans would be handling things if, let's say, an anti-war Democrat in the Clinton White House pulled a manic stunt like this-www.freep.com/voices/columnists/econyer3_20031003.htm.

 

[jay_too]

This is a little off-topic, but I am amazed that Robert Novak has remained unscathed by this.

Yeah, yeah, I know first amendment rights and all that; plus, it is likely that he did not commit a felony for printing names and positions. But I find it weird that ESPN commentator, Russ Limbaugh, had to resign over a comment with racial overtones while a columnist and CNN commentator, Robert Novak, may have endangered foreign sources of information and perhaps, a CIA agent by publishing a story that more reputable journalists [yeah, yeah, a value judgement] chose not to report. I think CNN should expect the same exit from Crossfire as Russ Limbaugh made. Moreover, editors across the country should consider if there is a need for this level of ethics and morality on their editorial pages.

jay

 

[jay_too]

Back on topic.

WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 — The Bush administration is seeking more than $600 million from Congress to continue the hunt for conclusive evidence that Saddam Hussein's government had an illegal weapons program, officials said Wednesday. [sub]New York Times, 10-1-03[/sub]

Can you believe this? Yep, throwing good money after bad.

If they really want to find the WMDs all the Bush White House has to do is ask Rumsfeld. Remember Rummy is the guy that told us before the war that he knew their location; of course, some might argue that he was blowin smoke.

Anyway, I thought the current party line was that the war was necessary to remove a rilly bad dictator who was doing rilly bad things to his people.
$600 million could buy a lot of schoolbooks for either Iraqi or American children and possibly such actions would serve better the interests of the U.S. in the long run.

Hey, Dubya, you f***** up; admit it; live with it; then let’s clean up the mess and get the hell out (after a decade or so).

jay

 

[13788]

longtimelurker: You think $600m is bad - you should see the estimates in the papers today on how much it's going to cost to get Iraq's flowing again at full capacity - I think the estimates were in the range of $8-10bn!!! It's madness at the moment - currently the 5th most oil-rich country in the world is having to import its oil!

 

[13788]

Longhornjok: [quote author=longtimelurker link=board=99;num=1058058510;start=80#84 date=10/02/03 at 12:46:39]You think $600m is bad - you should see the estimates in the papers today on how much it's going to cost to get Iraq's flowing again at full capacity - I think the estimates were in the range of $8-10bn!!![/quote]
Actually, it's much worse than THAT. Hamid Chalabi was on NPR yesterday and he estimated that Iraq needs $30+ BILLION over the next 3-4 years to bring their oil fields up to speed. This has nothing to do with the other $87 billion being discussed now in D.C., either. Also, he was asked about the possibility of some funding being provided as loans vs. grants. He said that, although down the road the Iraqis would of course want to pay their own costs, if the U.S. offers some of this funding as loans, many people will see it as confirmation that our only interest in invading Iraq was for monetary gain. So, in essence, he's saying we're going to have to pay to prove our innocence against that charge.

 

[13788]

hawl: Here's my take on the current state of the now widely covered Wilson story, and if anyone has any questions or new pieces of information, "bring 'em on!". The latest new information appears to be in today's Washington Post. The paper reports that as a result of the outing, a CIA front firm has been exposed. Besides whatever may come of that regarding other people etc., this story appears serious to me for two reasons. The first is, it is now (accidentally) established that Plame worked undercover within the last five years(which is one of the requirements for using the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, the old anti-Agee law). Apparently, we now know this woman wasn't just mopping floors at Langley in recent years, although isn't it crazy that the Republicans are practically demanding that Mr. Wilson produce a video or something of one of his wife's foreign "assets" being tortured to death as a result of her outing? Her identity was officially "classified". That is so "enough" that that's why the investigation legally had to be initiated. The second important thing about this Post story is that it is reported by Walter Pincus, who has such longstanding ties to the CIA that he has admitted some of them. He is often seen as being an unofficial spokesperson for the agency. These two articles describe the background, the "stronger, deeper forces" behind this story and how things got so messy-www.msnbc.com/news/974912.asp   www.commondreams.org/views03/1004-04.htm. In The Weekly Standard neoconservative William Kristol confirms that the CIA is "in open revolt" against the White House. Would this be believable in a novel, movie, etc.? I don't see how this is anything but a Watergate-sized (if only politically, who knows yet about legally?) disaster for the Republicans, or at least the neoconservatives. Am I missing something? Maybe I'm a bit old-fashioned and paranoiac, but ask the average person on the street how scary someone is if they're to the right of the CIA, and how stupid someone is to declare war on the CIA. I guess we now know what drugs Mr. Limbaugh is on, but what are Cheney, Wolfowitz, etc. so immoderately ingesting? Meanwhile the "soft on defense" Democrats can bask in the fact that an "unmasked" spook household appears to be more politically sympathetic to John Kerry than to John Ashcroft, and the CIA itself gets portrayed as less threatening than usual, even getting some sympathy for martyrdom. With each day of spinning and outright stonewalling, the whole Republican party gets dragged down into a posture of hypocrisy (remember how they shamelessly, shamelessly, pursued every rumor of a lead about Travelgate, Filegate, Whitewater, Lewinsky, Bill Clinton's alleged murders of so many who got in his way! etc.) and contempt for/obstruction of justice and national security. It's amazing that the whole thing has dragged on for so long already with so little cooperation from the so-called "right", but I think that means that this is serious and a lot of people are really screwed. Pat Buchanan has been at some kind of war with the neo-cons for a while, so I'm waiting to hear his take on all this. Espionage-knowledgable Seymour Hersh has yet to weigh in, and Pincus has been quiet too. Meanwhile "lucid and modern" conservatism's spokesman David Brooks today used his New York Times op-ed to write humorously about cultural stuff a la his book Bobos In Paradise, and so far seems to have avoided this story. By the way, Novak and Plame seem to be considered peripheral characters in the story by now. More important would seem to be the senior administration figure (any chance it could not be the long-embattled Colin Powell?) who has been (and may continue!) doing the CIA-friendly leaking about other reporters being contacted besides Novak.

 

[jay_too]

New York Times, 10/5/03:

The Bush administration's optimistic statements earlier this year that Iraq's oil wealth, not American taxpayers, would cover most of the cost of rebuilding Iraq were at odds with a bleaker assessment of a government task force secretly established last fall to study Iraq's oil industry, according to public records and government officials.

Optimistic statements? Errr....make that lies.

The estimates for multi-year support of American taxpayers to the rebuilding of Iraq range from $400 billion to $1 trillion. To pay for this international adventure, the American people will have to forego spending on highways, social programs...never a Republican priority, support for technology research and development....you get the picture. This massive transfer of wealth will give the U.S. higher interest payments...yep, mortgage payments will go up.

Personally, I do not think we have any choice but to clean up the mess we made of Iraq even if it costs $1 trillion.

My questions remain, "What the f*** are we doing in Iraq?" and "Didn't the American people deserve to know the truth before we invaded Iraq?"

jay

 

[jay_too]

I ran across this reading Salon.com tonight:

ABC News-Washington Post Poll, October 14, 2003

Two-thirds of those polled said an independent special counsel should handle the investigation of whether someone in the Bush administration broke the law by identifying a former diplomat's wife as an undercover CIA agent. People were evenly divided on whether the White House is fully cooperating with the investigation, a decline from last month.

The poll of 1,000 adults was taken from Oct. 9-13 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points...

So I guess that there is a possibility that the American people would rather spend $70 million or whatever for a Special Prosecutor. How silly! Those dollars are needed for another tax cut for the top 1%; they could pay for monthly pedicures for the really rich. ;D

I thought $70 million was a waste to spend on trying to find a Clinton felony. I think this is a potential waste also [I would rather the $70 million be spent on food banks]. I would hope that there is enough integrity in government to let the Justice Department handle the investigation ...maybe Ashcroft should recuse himself. The focus of the investigation should be on identifying the leaks and uncovering the reason(s) and not on revenge.

Maybe my opinion is wrong, and America needs to witness another blood sport.

jay