|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jan 29, 2007 5:09:50 GMT -6
Buchanan tears Bush a new one - Again. Below is an article from Townhall.com where Pat Buchanan exposes the lies and stupidity of the Bush dictatorship pertaining to Iraq, Iran, and the Middle East. The article is titled "The Ideologue"" The Ideologue By Patrick J. Buchanan
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Churchillian it was not. Yet the State of the Union seemed a success if Bush's purpose was to buy time from Congress to wait and see if his surge of U.S. forces into Iraq might yet succeed.
But when Bush started to describe the ideological war we are in, one began to understand why we are in the mess we are in.
"This war," said Bush, "is an ideological struggle. ... To prevail, we must remove the conditions that inspire blind hatred and drove 19 men to get onto airplanes and to come to kill us."
But the "conditions" that drove those 19 men "to come to kill us" is our dominance of their world, our authoritarian allies and Israel.
They were over here because we are over there.
If Bush is going to remove those "conditions," he is going to have to get us out of the Middle East. Is he prepared to do that? Of course not. Because Bush, believing the problem is not our pervasive presence but the lack of freedom in the Middle East, is waging his own ideological war to bring freedom in by force of arms, if necessary.
"What every terrorist fears most is human freedom -- societies where men and women make their own choices."
Very American. But the truth is terrorists do not fear free societies, they flourish in them. The suicide bombers of 9-11, Madrid and London all plotted their atrocities in free societies. From the Red Brigades, who murdered Italy's Aldo Mori, to the Baader-Meinhoff Gang, who tried to kill Al Haig, to the Basque ETA, the IRA and the Puerto Rican terrorists who tried to assassinate Harry Truman, free societies are where they do their most effective work.
Stalin's Russia and Nazi Germany had no trouble with terrorists.
"Free people are not drawn to violent and malignant ideologies," declared Bush. Oh? Explain, then, why 70 million Germans, under the most democratic government in their history, gave more than half their votes to Nazis and Communists in 1933? In every plebiscite he held, Hitler won a landslide. In the year of Anschluss and Munich, 1938, Hitler was Time's Man of the Year and far more popular than FDR, who lost 71 seats in the House.
During 2006, free Latin peoples brought to power anti-American Leftists Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, Evo Morales in Bolivia, Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua and Rafael Correa in Ecuador, and came close to electing their comrades Ollanta Humala in Peru and Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador in Mexico.
In the free elections Bush demanded in Egypt, Lebanon, Palestine and Iraq, the winners were the Muslim Brotherhood, Hezbollah, Hamas and Shia militants with ties to Iran.
If a referendum were held in the Middle East on the proposition of the U.S. military out and Israel gone, how does Bush think it would come out?
"So we advance our security interests by helping moderates, reformers and brave voices for democracy," said Bush. But how many of those "moderates" -- Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Morocco, Kuwait, the Gulf States -- are ruled "by brave voices for democracy"?
Our Islamist enemies would likely endorse unanimously a Bush call for free elections in all those countries, as elections could not but help advance to greater power, at the expense of our friends, those same Islamist enemies.
What is Bush doing? The America that won the Cold War said ideology be damned, we stand by our friends.
"The great question of our day is whether America will help men and women in the Middle East to build free societies," said Bush.
But if we bleed our country to give the men and women of the Middle East the freedom to choose the society they wish to live in, are we sure they will not choose a society where Sharia is law? In liberated Afghanistan, popular sentiment was behind beheading that Muslim who converted to Christianity.
What leads Bush to believe everyone wants to be like us? Is it not ideology?
To characterize "the totalitarian ideology" we confront, Bush quoted Osama bin Laden: "Death is better than living on this Earth with the unbelievers among us."
This is the true mark of the true believer. But did not the Spain of Isabella want the "unbelievers" removed from "among us"? Did not Elizabeth I feel the same about Catholics?
"Give me liberty or give me death!" said Patrick Henry of the Brits remaining in this country that Brits had founded. "Live free or die!" is the motto of the great state of New Hampshire.
This is the heart of the war we are in. Americans believe in freedom first. Millions of Muslims believe in Islam first -- submission to Allah. We decide for us. Do we also decide for them?
Perhaps the best advice we can give our Muslim friends in the Middle East is the hard advice Lord Byron gave the Greeks under the Islamic rule of Ottoman Turks:
Hereditary bondsmen! know ye not,
Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow?
------- Copyright © 2006 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved."
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Jan 29, 2007 5:27:34 GMT -6
Yet another great article from renowned leftist "comrade"Buchanan.
One of the biggest fallacies of this of this whole misadventure is the fact that Saddam, while indeed a very very bad man knew how to keep a lid on the radicals. He had zero tolerance for the Islamic extremists precisely because they were a threat to his regime.
The neocons conveniently overlook the fact that Saddam was our "friend" that we built up and created as a check on the radicalism that was sprouting up in Iran. Remeber all those smiling handshaky pictures of Saddam and Rumsfeld, and the one with 41. Perhaps the neocons were so certain of the WMD, because Cheney and Rummy sold Saddam the weapons pre Gulf war one.
|
|
|
Post by LibSlayer on Jan 30, 2007 13:04:53 GMT -6
Buchanan tears Bush a new one - All the more reason to believe Bush is correct, Buchanan is a religious fanatic nutcase.
|
|
|
Post by LibSlayer on Jan 30, 2007 13:29:56 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jan 31, 2007 0:01:03 GMT -6
from the report referenced above:
"LEE HAMILTON, 9/11 COMMISSION VICE CHAIRMAN: All we can do is state as clearly as we can what the evidence is that we have found. We have found no operational collaboration between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden with regard to attacks on the United States. That conclusion is a very firm one that we have reached. "
Seems pretty clearcut and unmistakable. No connection. Period.
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Jan 31, 2007 5:25:17 GMT -6
And all the more reason to stick by the tried and true conservative view point of avoidance of foreign entanglements. If we hadn't contributed to the rise of the radicals in Iran by backing the Shah, we would never have gotten in bed with Saddam in Iraq - look where all this got us today.
|
|
|
Post by LibSlayer on Jan 31, 2007 8:04:31 GMT -6
And all the more reason to stick by the tried and true conservative view point of avoidance of foreign entanglements. . Yeah, that worked so well in the past, that is what brought us WW1 and WW11.
|
|
|
Post by LibSlayer on Jan 31, 2007 8:13:32 GMT -6
from the report referenced above: " LEE HAMILTON, 9/11 COMMISSION VICE CHAIRMAN: We have found no operational collaboration between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden with regard to attacks on the United States. . OPERATIVE phrase is "with regard to attacks on the United States". Second it is utterly irrelevant, when a known mobster meets with a politician repeatedly, just because you can't FIND evidence the politician is crooked, it is foolish to assume that he isn't. We have clear evidence that OBL's staff repeatedly met with senior Iraqi officials. [/i]"eems pretty clearcut and unmistakable. No connection. Period. [/quote] He clearly said there WERE connections. Period.
|
|
huck
Contributor
Posts: 81
|
Post by huck on Jan 31, 2007 15:24:06 GMT -6
Second it is utterly irrelevant, when a known mobster meets with a politician repeatedly, just because you can't FIND evidence the politician is crooked, it is foolish to assume that he isn't. We have clear evidence that OBL's staff repeatedly met with senior Iraqi officials. Wow you are right, after rummy met with saddam to give him WMD to use with our permission an honest person should have suspected the whole Bush clan was dirty, but instead another got elected. And since it is quite clear that senior US officials met with OBL's staff too, shouldn't we be attacking ourselves now too? I'm just using your train of logic. You should go back to being a freerep'r, they accept that kind of faulty logic there.
|
|
|
Post by LibSlayer on Jan 31, 2007 15:45:49 GMT -6
Wow you are right, after rummy met with saddam to give him WMD to use with our permission an honest person should have suspected the whole Bush clan was dirty, but instead another got elected. The US didn't give Iraq WMD. And since it is quite clear that senior US officials met with OBL's staff too, shouldn't we be attacking ourselves now too? I'm just using your train of logic. You should go back to being a freerep'r, they accept that kind of faulty logic there. What evidence do you have that US officials met with OBL's staff?
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Jan 31, 2007 17:05:32 GMT -6
There you go again - the usual righty tactic of resorting to insults and attacks when you have no argument
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Feb 1, 2007 2:54:00 GMT -6
from the report referenced above: " LEE HAMILTON, 9/11 COMMISSION VICE CHAIRMAN: We have found no operational collaboration between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden with regard to attacks on the United States. . with regard to attacks on the United States Yes, of course "with regard to attacks on the United States." I hope we're not going to go starting wars with every country that attacks another country. That goes a little beyond the main function of the U.S. military-- to protect the United States.
|
|
huck
Contributor
Posts: 81
|
Post by huck on Feb 1, 2007 4:27:24 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by LibSlayer on Feb 1, 2007 8:21:16 GMT -6
with regard to attacks on the United States Yes, of course "with regard to attacks on the United States." I hope we're not going to go starting wars with every country that attacks another country. That goes a little beyond the main function of the U.S. military-- to protect the United States. The US didn't start the war, Saddam did. Second we invaded to prevent our enemies from obtaining very dangerous weapons to use against us. David Kay Jan 26, 2004 "In the marketplace of terrorism and of WMD, Iraq well could have been that supplier if the war had not intervened." www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4066462/David Kay - testimony to Congress Jan 28, 2004 "It was a country that had the capability in weapons of mass destruction areas and in which terrorists, like ants to honey, were going after it. " thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r108:S28JA4-0018:
|
|
|
Post by LibSlayer on Feb 1, 2007 8:27:08 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Feb 2, 2007 3:24:48 GMT -6
Your proof? Nothing about the US giving Iraq WMD. Nothing about the U.S. giving Iraq WMDs? Did you read the article? Maybe you couldn't get the link to work. I'll post the text here in case that was the problem. "A look at U.S. shipments of pathogens to Iraq
Shipments from the United States to Iraq of the kinds of pathogens later used in Iraq's biological weapons programs, according to records from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Senate Banking Committee and U.N. weapons inspectors:
ANTHRAX....
The American Type Culture Collection, a biological samples repository in Manassas, Va., sent two shipments of anthrax to Iraq in the 1980s. Three anthrax strains were in a May 1986 shipment sent to the University of Baghdad, which U.N. inspectors later linked to Iraq's biological weapons program. A 1988 shipment from ATCC to Iraq also included four anthrax strains.
BOTULINUM...
ATCC sent six strains of Clostridium botulinum to the University of Baghdad in the May 1986 shipment. The September 1988 ATCC shipment to Iraq also contained one strain of Clostridium botulinum.
In March 1986, the CDC sent samples of botulinum toxin and botulinum toxiod (used to make a vaccine against botulinum poisoning) directly to Iraq's al-Muthanna complex, a center for Iraq's chemical weapons program and the site where Iraq restarted its dormant biological weapons program in 1985.
GAS GANGRENE....
ATCC sent three strains of Clostridium perfringens to the University of Baghdad in the May 1986 shipment and another three strains in the 1988 shipment.
OTHER
The CDC sent bacteria samples to Iraq's Atomic Energy Commission in 1985, 1987 and 1988.....
The CDC also sent bacteria samples to the Sera and Vaccine Institute in Amiriyah, Iraq in 1988....." www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002-09-30-iraq-ushelp-list_x.htm Unless USA Today simply made all of this up, I'd say this is pretty convincing commentary that the U.S. did give Iraq WMDs.
|
|
|
Post by LibSlayer on Feb 2, 2007 8:12:01 GMT -6
Your proof? Nothing about the US giving Iraq WMD. Nothing about the U.S. giving Iraq WMDs? Did you read the article? Maybe you couldn't get the link to work. I'll post the text here in case that was the problem. Yes, and nothing there about giving them WMD
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Feb 3, 2007 16:25:38 GMT -6
Yes, and nothing there about giving them WMD Really. Let's go over this again. ANTHRAX....
The American Type Culture Collection, a biological samples repository in Manassas, Va., sent two shipments of anthrax to Iraq in the 1980s. Three anthrax strains were in a May 1986 shipment sent to the University of Baghdad, which U.N. inspectors later linked to Iraq's biological weapons program. A 1988 shipment from ATCC to Iraq also included four anthrax strains.
BOTULINUM...
ATCC sent six strains of Clostridium botulinum to the University of Baghdad in the May 1986 shipment. The September 1988 ATCC shipment to Iraq also contained one strain of Clostridium botulinum.
In March 1986, the CDC sent samples of botulinum toxin and botulinum toxiod (used to make a vaccine against botulinum poisoning) directly to Iraq's al-Muthanna complex,....
GAS GANGRENE....
ATCC sent three strains of Clostridium perfringens to the University of Baghdad in the May 1986 shipment and another three strains in the 1988 shipment.
OTHER
The CDC sent bacteria samples to Iraq's Atomic Energy Commission in 1985, 1987 and 1988.....
The CDC also sent bacteria samples to the Sera and Vaccine Institute in Amiriyah, Iraq in 1988....."So these aren't WMDs ?????
|
|
|
Post by LibSlayer on Feb 3, 2007 18:58:37 GMT -6
Yes, and nothing there about giving them WMD Really. Let's go over this again. ANTHRAX....
The American Type Culture Collection, a biological samples repository in Manassas, Va., sent two shipments of anthrax to Iraq in the 1980s. Three anthrax strains were in a May 1986 shipment sent to the University of Baghdad, which U.N. inspectors later linked to Iraq's biological weapons program. A 1988 shipment from ATCC to Iraq also included four anthrax strains.
BOTULINUM...
ATCC sent six strains of Clostridium botulinum to the University of Baghdad in the May 1986 shipment. The September 1988 ATCC shipment to Iraq also contained one strain of Clostridium botulinum.
In March 1986, the CDC sent samples of botulinum toxin and botulinum toxiod (used to make a vaccine against botulinum poisoning) directly to Iraq's al-Muthanna complex,....
GAS GANGRENE....
ATCC sent three strains of Clostridium perfringens to the University of Baghdad in the May 1986 shipment and another three strains in the 1988 shipment.
OTHER
The CDC sent bacteria samples to Iraq's Atomic Energy Commission in 1985, 1987 and 1988.....
The CDC also sent bacteria samples to the Sera and Vaccine Institute in Amiriyah, Iraq in 1988....."So these aren't WMDs ????? If you are saying they are, then there is NO DOUBT Saddam had WMD. However, what was given to them would have required R&D for weaponisation, which was going on right up to the invasion.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Feb 4, 2007 3:57:36 GMT -6
If you are saying they are, then there is NO DOUBT Saddam had WMD. However, what was given to them would have required R&D for weaponisation, which was going on right up to the invasion. Wrong again. This time on both counts. The WMDs we did give to Saddam back in the late 80's were gone before 2003. That's why we didn't find any. Because he didn't have any by that time. Yes, the U.S. Government did give Saddam WMDs. And no, he had none when we invaded. And that's the conclusion of every single expert that looked at the evidence, and it also the conclusion of the 9/11 commission. Bush's claim that Saddam had WMDs was a complete, unmitigated lie. He knew Saddam didn't have WMDs. And the only thing even vaguely suggestive of their presence was that the U.S. had given him some back in the 80's. He wasn't "weaponizing" anything. And Bush already knew this, and knew that previous WMDs were gone. He simply lied about it to start a war with Iraq. And like a typical, incompetent dirtbag Corporate CEO (which is what Bush was in private life), everyone else has had to pay the price for his lies and stupidity.
|
|
|
Post by LibSlayer on Feb 4, 2007 11:27:57 GMT -6
If you are saying they are, then there is NO DOUBT Saddam had WMD. However, what was given to them would have required R&D for weaponisation, which was going on right up to the invasion. Wrong again. This time on both counts. The WMDs we did give to Saddam back in the late 80's were gone before 2003. That's why we didn't find any. Because he didn't have any by that time. {/quote] Wrong we FOUND some of those items after the invasion, found them in labs and scientists homes. So if you are saying they are WMD then we found WMD. Bush was right again.
|
|
|
Post by liberalcapitalist on Feb 4, 2007 14:03:04 GMT -6
No,your totally wrong on this,liblayer.Bush went into Iraq bewcause he stated in 2000 that he wanted to be a war president.He invaded Iraq without cause on the premise that Saddam had wmd's,which had not been found by the U.N. searchers,so he warned them to get out so he could maintain some kind of justification for the inavasion.Now Bush has killed more Americans than Saddam did,and probably 10 times more Arabs.Bush is a lying sack of crap;the whole world knows it except for the small percentage with their heads up in the sand.
|
|
huck
Contributor
Posts: 81
|
Post by huck on Feb 4, 2007 16:05:51 GMT -6
Wrong we FOUND some of those items after the invasion, found them in labs and scientists homes. So you say huh? what viable weaponizable materials were found? decades old misplaced degraded shells don't count. This is all about greed, who gets to be the most greedy. "characterized by ego-centrism and the inability to consider the perspectives of others", Republicans like to talk about "whats mine" hoping to be able to show off, not willing to share, seeing each gain they make as an unavoidable loss for someone else. Liberals fail when they refuse to realize some children never morally outgrow the "ME,ME .. its mine, .. I WANT!" stage. They need to be treated as the adult sized toddlers they act like. Advertising understands already, why else do you think there are still "head on" commercials. There was a quick profit to be made, greed did the rest. First we helped construct the monster, then in fixing that we throw the baby out with the bathwater. We took one mess, made a bigger mess out of it, then destroyed a lot of what was left trying to clean that up and then we act surprised when the only ones happy about this are the unionized janitors, er defense industry?
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Feb 8, 2007 15:54:39 GMT -6
Wrong we FOUND some of those items after the invasion, found them in labs and scientists homes. So you say huh? what viable weaponizable materials were found? decades old misplaced degraded shells don't count. Exactly right, Huck. What was found in Iraq was completely unusable as weapons. This is all about greed, who gets to be the most greedy. Exactly. Bush went in to Iraq to be a "war-time" president, to compensate for his dodging the draft back in Vietnam. Bush was supported by his Corporate American backers, who saw Iraq as still another source of Corporate Welfare - where they could obtain U.S. taxpayer money for projects, while not being held accountable for how the money was spent (or embezzled).
|
|
|
Post by LibSlayer on Feb 8, 2007 16:02:59 GMT -6
"Exactly right, Huck. What was found in Iraq was completely unusable as weapons. " Wrong again. WASHINGTON, June 29, 2006 – The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center's commander said here today. "These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes ... they do constitute weapons of mass destruction," Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee" While that's reassuring, the agent remaining in the weapons would be very valuable to terrorists and insurgents,(Major General) Maples said. "We're talking chemical agents here that could be packaged in a different format and have a great effect," he said, referencing the sarin-gas attack on a Japanese subway in the mid-1990s. This is true even considering any degradation of the chemical agents that may have occurred, Chu said. It's not known exactly how sarin breaks down, but no matter how degraded the agent is, it's still toxic. www.defenselink.mil/news/Jun2006/20060629_5547.htmlwww.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2006/06/iraq-060629-afps02.htmLTG Maples (November 2005 - Present) Major General Michael D. Maples, U.S. Army, was appointed the 16th DIA Director on November 4, 2005 www.dia.mil/history/histories/Directors/index.html
|
|
|
Post by LibSlayer on Feb 8, 2007 16:07:54 GMT -6
" Republicans like to talk about "whats mine" hoping to be able to show off, not willing to share, "
Wrong, not willing to be FORCED to share with those who do not deserve it.
"seeing each gain they make as an unavoidable loss for someone else. "
Only liberals see it as a zero sum game, only liberals see one person has less because another has more. Liberals seem incapable of realizing that wealth is CREATED and expanded, that one person has more has nothing to do with another person having liess.
|
|
|
Post by ig on Feb 11, 2007 9:21:25 GMT -6
"Exactly right, Huck. What was found in Iraq was completely unusable as weapons. " Wrong again. WASHINGTON, June 29, 2006 – The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center's commander said here today. "These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes ... they do constitute weapons of mass destruction," Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee" While that's reassuring, the agent remaining in the weapons would be very valuable to terrorists and insurgents,(Major General) Maples said. "We're talking chemical agents here that could be packaged in a different format and have a great effect," he said, referencing the sarin-gas attack on a Japanese subway in the mid-1990s. This is true even considering any degradation of the chemical agents that may have occurred, Chu said. It's not known exactly how sarin breaks down, but no matter how degraded the agent is, it's still toxic. www.defenselink.mil/news/Jun2006/20060629_5547.htmlwww.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2006/06/iraq-060629-afps02.htmLTG Maples (November 2005 - Present) Major General Michael D. Maples, U.S. Army, was appointed the 16th DIA Director on November 4, 2005 www.dia.mil/history/histories/Directors/index.htmlso why weren't they ever used? not gulf war 1 or 2. not in the Iraqi insurgency. Why hasn't the Iranian Pasdaran used them. The are probably very active in Iraq. for that matter we can walk through the battlefield of WW1 and still find traces of weapons of mild discomfort. essentially what the neo cons have said is that deterrents, those things we have spent trillions of taxpayer dollars on, dint work. That nations like Iraq will use these weapons on the US knowing that the minute they launch they will be removed from the face of the earth. and as former president Ford stated, thats why the WMD argument is so weak. Saddam dealt with insurgents brutally but he was not stupid nor crazy. Operation Iraqi Liberation is about just what the acronym states. O.I.L. It really should be called the Operation privatization, OPEC busting, market driven second largest reserve in the world. but that doesn't fit on a bumper sticker
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Feb 11, 2007 19:22:26 GMT -6
( from unlawflcombatnt):"Exactly right, Huck. What was found in Iraq was completely unusable as weapons. " Wrong again. WASHINGTON, June 29, 2006 – The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center's commander said here today. No, Libslayer, it is you who is wrong. Again. The 9/11 committee and its conclusions (which mean a hell of lot more than the "opinion" of one commander) showed exactly the opposite. No WMDs. None. Period. Again, 1 commander's statement does not prove otherwise, nor does it even suggest otherwise. It simply suggest one more administration official who was either dead wrong, or lying. In fact, the IAEA stated that they destroyed Sadam's WMDs in 1998. And he produced none after that time.
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Feb 11, 2007 20:02:02 GMT -6
Of the numerous "number 2" and "right hand" men of Saddam's that were captured and interrogated, those that talked confirmed that Saddam had long ago disposed of any significant weapons caches that survived Gulf War I, and any of Saddam's boasts and posturing to the contrary was for internal consumption to keep up his tough guy image.
|
|