Chomsky -- selective memory and false doctrine

[Cain]

We recently had a thread on Chomsky and the media. Here's a good sampling of his general approach to U.S. foreign policy.

All people who have any concern for human rights, justice and integrity should be overjoyed by the capture of Saddam Hussein, and should be awaiting a fair trial for him by an international tribunal.

An indictment of Saddam's atrocities would include not only his slaughter and gassing of Kurds in 1988 but also, rather crucially, his massacre of the Shiite rebels who might have overthrown him in 1991.

At the time, Washington and its allies held the "strikingly unanimous view (that) whatever the sins of the Iraqi leader, he offered the West and the region a better hope for his country's stability than did those who have suffered his repression," reported Alan Cowell in the New York Times.

Last December, Jack Straw, Britain's foreign secretary, released a dossier of Saddam's crimes drawn almost entirely from the period of firm U.S.-British support of Saddam.

With the usual display of moral integrity, Straw's report and Washington's reaction overlooked that support.

Such practices reflect a trap deeply rooted in the intellectual culture generally - a trap sometimes called the doctrine of change of course, invoked in the United States every two or three years. The content of the doctrine is: "Yes, in the past we did some wrong things because of innocence or inadvertence. But now that's all over, so let's not waste any more time on this boring, stale stuff."

The doctrine is dishonest and cowardly, but it does have advantages: It protects us from the danger of understanding what is happening before our eyes.

For example, the Bush administration's original reason for going to war in Iraq was to save the world from a tyrant developing weapons of mass destruction and cultivating links to terror. Nobody believes that now, not even Bush's speech writers.

The new reason is that we invaded Iraq to establish a democracy there and, in fact, to democratize the whole Middle East.

Sometimes, the repetition of this democracy-building posture reaches the level of rapturous acclaim.

Last month, for example, David Ignatius, the Washington Post commentator, described the invasion of Iraq as "the most idealistic war in modern times" - fought solely to bring democracy to Iraq and the region.

Ignatius was particularly impressed with Paul Wolfowitz, "the Bush administration's idealist in chief," whom he described as a genuine intellectual who "bleeds for (the Arab world's) oppression and dreams of liberating it."

Maybe that helps explain Wolfowitz's career - like his strong support for Suharto in Indonesia, one of the last century's worst mass murderers and aggressors, when Wolfowitz was ambassador to that country under Ronald Reagan.

As the State Department official responsible for Asian affairs under Reagan, Wolfowitz oversaw support for the murderous dictators Chun of South Korea and Marcos of the Philippines.

All this is irrelevant because of the convenient doctrine of change of course.

So, yes, Wolfowitz's heart bleeds for the victims of oppression - and if the record shows the opposite, it's just that boring old stuff that we want to forget about.

One might recall another recent illustration of Wolfowitz's love of democracy. The Turkish parliament, heeding its population's near-unanimous opposition to war in Iraq, refused to let U.S. forces deploy fully from Turkey. This caused absolute fury in Washington.

Wolfowitz denounced the Turkish military for failing to intervene to overturn the decision. Turkey was listening to its people, not taking orders from Crawford, Texas, or Washington, D.C.

The most recent chapter is Wolfowitz's "Determination and Findings" on bidding for lavish reconstruction contracts in Iraq. Excluded are countries where the government dared to take the same position as the vast majority of the population.

Wolfowitz's alleged grounds are "security interests," which are non-existent, though the visceral hatred of democracy is hard to miss - along with the fact that Halliburton and Bechtel corporations will be free to "compete" with the vibrant democracy of Uzbekistan and the Solomon Islands, but not with leading industrial societies.

What's revealing and important to the future is that Washington's display of contempt for democracy went side by side with a chorus of adulation about its yearning for democracy.

To be able to carry that off is an impressive achievement, hard to mimic even in a totalitarian state.

Iraqis have some insight into this process of conquerors and conquered.

The British created Iraq for their own interests. When they ran that part of the world, they discussed how to set up what they called Arab facades - weak, pliable governments, parliamentary if possible, so long as the British effectively ruled.

Who would expect that the United States would ever permit an independent Iraqi government to exist? Especially now that Washington has reserved the right to set up permanent military bases there, in the heart of the world's greatest oil-producing region, and has imposed an economic regime that no sovereign country would accept, putting the country's fate in the hands of Western corporations.

Throughout history, even the harshest and most shameful measures are regularly accompanied by professions of noble intent - and rhetoric about bestowing freedom and independence.

An honest look would only generalize Thomas Jefferson's observation on the world situation of his day: "We believe no more in Bonaparte's fighting merely for the liberties of the seas than in Great Britain's fighting for the liberties of mankind. The object is the same, to draw to themselves the power, the wealth and the resources of other nations."

[Otther]

His timescale for the "doctrine of change" is a little off. Every 4 or 8 years seems like a solid estimate to me...

And see, this is the trouble I see with blaming the US for it's helping dictators in the past. It is the US's fault... but that US was in control of another goverment, and you can't blame the current goverment for the past ones' errors. If there is anyone to blame it is the american people... and yet no-one seems to want to standup and say "You stupid gits, think before you vote!"

[a_unique_person]

Governments come and go, but the institutions of the Military Industrial Complex persist.

It is also a little hard for voters to know what is going on when they are told lies repeatedly.

[Ziggurat]

International tribunal my ass. He needs to be tried by the Iraqis themselves. That is proper from both a legal and moral standpoint. Not surprised that Chomsky doesn't want it that way, though.

[Chaos]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
International tribunal my ass. He needs to be tried by the Iraqis themselves. That is proper from both a legal and moral standpoint.

He cannot have a fair tribunal in Iraq. People there are biased either towards him (former cronies) or against him (everyone else).

Therefore, the tribunal must be international. Not because an international tribunal would likely get to another conclusion, but because this is the proper thing to do.

Not surprised that Chomsky doesn't want it that way, though.

Why not? Turned into a psychic lately?


By the way, I can see why our resident hyperpatriotic right-wingers don´t like Chomsky. He is not infected by their "whatever we do is right" sickness.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Chaos

By the way, I can see why our resident hyperpatriotic right-wingers don´t like Chomsky. He is not infected by their "whatever we do is right" sickness.


Chomsky's "whatever we do is wrong" sickness is much worse.

[Chaos]

Originally posted by Tony



Chomsky's "whatever we do is wrong" sickness is much worse.

His sickness is "I will tell you what we do wrong". This is also called "constructive criticism".

D@mn it, are you blind or what? He is trying to HELP America!

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Chaos


His sickness is "I will tell you what we do wrong". This is also called "constructive criticism".

D@mn it, are you blind or what? He is trying to HELP America!

There's a difference between criticizing and finding conspiracy theories in everything the government does.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Chaos


His sickness is "I will tell you what we do wrong". This is also called "constructive criticism".


Just like Rush Limbaugh? Actually no, Rush Limbaugh is merely a partisan demagogue; Chomsky is a conspiracy theory wacko.

D@mn it, are you blind or what? He is trying to HELP America!


So? Like that is suppose to matter? Jerry Fallwell is trying to "help" America too.

[corplinx]

For example, the Bush administration's original reason for going to war in Iraq was to save the world from a tyrant developing weapons of mass destruction and cultivating links to terror. Nobody believes that now, not even Bush's speech writers.

The new reason is that we invaded Iraq to establish a democracy there and, in fact, to democratize the whole Middle East.


Sooo. Chomsky is supposed to be an intellectual but he falls for history revision memes?

The way some of you guys look at him like a demigod scares me.

Get a life.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by corplinx


Sooo. Chomsky is supposed to be an intellectual but he falls for history revision memes?

The way some of you guys look at him like a demigod scares me.

Get a life.

You seem to be forgetting that Saddam was told numerous times that if he gave up the WMD, there would be no invasion. Who's the revisionist?

[Grammatron]

For example, the Bush administration's original reason for going to war in Iraq was to save the world from a tyrant developing weapons of mass destruction and cultivating links to terror. Nobody believes that now, not even Bush's speech writers.

The new reason is that we invaded Iraq to establish a democracy there and, in fact, to democratize the whole Middle East.


Since when? As far as I know the reason remains the same; Saddam was supporting terrorism, did not report what he did with his WMDs and because of such profitable resource as oil was in the position to do so indefinitely no matter how many sanctions UN put on him. Thus, the only way to change that was to remove Saddam and install a democracy.

[digitalmcq]

Originally posted by Tony



Chomsky's "whatever we do is wrong" sickness is much worse.

I'm not sure I understand where you get the idea that Chomsky believes that everything the US does is wrong. I've seen lectures and interviews where he has gone on praising the US as the most free country in the world (and has repeatedly attacked France and other countries for trying to curb the free speech rights of their citizens). Chomsky also spends a great deal of time discussing the philosophies of the founding fathers of the US (who he has a great deal of respect for). It is the policies of our government that Chomsky takes issue with. Why is this so wrong?

Also, I'd like someone to actually reference a so-called 'conspiracy' that Chomsky has supposedly hyped. Pick an example and we'll discuss it. Saying he is a conspiracy nut is a little empty unless you can demonstrate it.

[Cain]

By any standard the above criticisms are pathetically weak.

There's a difference between criticizing and finding conspiracy theories in everything the government does.

I am intensely curious to see you identify the conspiracy theory here, or how it fits within such a framework.


Corplinx provides with three characteristically idiotic remarks:

Sooo. Chomsky is supposed to be an intellectual but he falls for history revision memes?

How is it revisionism? We were constantly told Iraq posed a threat to the world because Saddam possessed biological and chemical weapons ("he even gassed his own people!" (with U.S. support in the 80s)) and he was developing nuclear capabilities. Cheney especially emphasized that point. Bush and Rice warned against the smoking gun coming in "the form of a mushroom cloud." The threat was "urgent", "grave", "signficiant" and so on. We needed to unleash an army on Baghdad before it was necessary for an army of firefighters, police, and medical personell descend on an American city in response to a catastrophic event.

Weapons of mass destruction have not been found even in spite of Rumsfeld's blustering comment that we know where they are (apparently in or around Tikrit).

How often does the administration and the administration's loyal apologists now discuss weapons of mass destruction? Nah, we were there to liberate Iraq (because we love democracy).

That was the primary justification and Bush linked into the broader fight of the war on terror.

If you want to insist that we're now fighting terrorism by installing a democracy -- which remains to be seen -- fine.

That's just not at all persuasive, however, to anyone who paid any attention to the news in the run-up to war.

This is why non-Republicans and centrists and quasi liberals are better apologists. They're willing to criticize and disagree with the Bush team on a few minor points thereby lending them credibility on the more important issue of war in general. (Think Thomas Friedman or Christopher Hitchens).

The way some of you guys look at him like a demigod scares me.

Get a life.

:rolleyes:

In fact, I would fault Chomsky for his own selective memory for something he recently said to the _Independent_ about his past comments on Afghanistan. There's no urge to sidetrack this thread with unnecessary praise or irrelevant criticism.

I've seen lectures and interviews where he has gone on praising the US as the most free country in the world (and has repeatedly attacked France and other countries for trying to curb the free speech rights of their citizens).

Adding to this, I've heard Chomsky say before 9/11 that France is an "illiterate country" and he generally avoids it when giving talks abroad.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Cain

Corplinx provides with three characteristically idiotic remarks:




You should be a creationist, your style reminds me a lot of them.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Since when? As far as I know the reason remains the same; Saddam was supporting terrorism, did not report what he did with his WMDs and because of such profitable resource as oil was in the position to do so indefinitely no matter how many sanctions UN put on him. Thus, the only way to change that was to remove Saddam and install a democracy.

The only problem with this logic is that right up until the last months before the invasion, the US was saying that if Saddam could prove he had no WMD, or gave up what he had, the invasion would not proceed.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


The only problem with this logic is that right up until the last months before the invasion, the US was saying that if Saddam could prove he had no WMD, or gave up what he had, the invasion would not proceed.

There's no problem with that logic. Like I said, Saddam refused to report what he had which was a final nail in the coffin.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by corplinx



You should be a creationist, your style reminds me a lot of them.

You mean how they tend to give terse dismissals with little or no supporting facts or argument?

Or am I just thinking of your hated "woo-woos" in general?

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Suddenly


You mean how they tend to give terse dismissals with little or no supporting facts or argument?

Or am I just thinking of your hated "woo-woos" in general?

I was just trying to bait Cain. These Chomsky marks are fun to play with. Did you read the thread where I "reviewed" the video manufacturing consent?

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Suddenly


You mean how they tend to give terse dismissals with little or no supporting facts or argument?


Okay, I'll bite. I think that Cain and Chomsky should support the arguement that the war was all about WMD instead of me debunking this popular urban legend.

A. Bush had a stated policy of regime change even before 9/11
B. Bush claimed we needed to take out Saddam because of his links to international terrorism as part of the war on terror
C. Bush claimed we needed to take out Saddam because of his unaccounted for WMD (and his propensity to use them in the past)
D. Bush claimed we needed to take out Saddam to stabilize the region
E. Bush claimed we needed to take out Saddam to liberate his people (a nice gesture since the west really screwed them by not supporting the post-Gulf I insurgency)
F. Bush claimed we needed to take out Saddam since Saddam was in violation of the treaty that was supposed to end the first Gulf War


Chomsky says:
"For example, the Bush administration's original reason for going to war in Iraq was to save the world from a tyrant developing weapons of mass destruction and cultivating links to terror. Nobody believes that now, not even Bush's speech writers."

This is rubbish and all of you know it.

Furthermore:
"The new reason is that we invaded Iraq to establish a democracy there and, in fact, to democratize the whole Middle East."

Did Chomsky miss all of the freedom and liberation talk in Bush's state of the union speech before the war? He is such an intellectual you know, that I am sure he actually pays attention to current events and watches the raw sources since the media manufactures consent.

I may have missed the quote where Bush said:
"Iraq was step one of our master plan to democratize the entire mideast". Would someone point out this quote for me?


Noam Chomsky is a great intellectual........



FOR ME TO POOP ON!

[Cain]

Originally posted by corplinx
[B]

Okay, I'll bite. I think that Cain and Chomsky should support the arguement that the war was all about WMD instead of me debunking this popular urban legend.

Sometimes I wonder if you act this stupid for entertainment purposes alone. Look, the Bush administration was rather clear that first and foremost, this invasion was about desposing of a dictator that wanted to hold the world hostage. They even (mis)used the word "pre-emptive" to describe their aggressions.

I mean, it's not difficult to find what's now interpreted as an incriminating quote. I bet if you checked the forum in early in March, most of the resident war-time apologists can be found repeating White House propaganda.

Anyway, here's a quote from Ari Fleischer, which I am able to produce because I partially remembered it. Google filled in the gaps.

"We have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction - that is what this war was about, and is about - and we have high confidence it will be found."

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22We%20have%20high%20confidence%20that%2 0they%20have%20weapons%20of%20mass%20destruction%2 2

Read my above post where I spoke about Bush's primary justification. Of course they're going to rattle off other, subordinate, secondary rationales and claims.


Chomsky says:
"For example, the Bush administration's original reason for going to war in Iraq was to save the world from a tyrant developing weapons of mass destruction and cultivating links to terror. Nobody believes that now, not even Bush's speech writers."

Did Chomsky miss all of the freedom and liberation talk in Bush's state of the union speech before the war? He is such an intellectual you know, that I am sure he actually pays attention to current events and watches the raw sources since the media manufactures consent.

:rolleyes:

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Cain


Anyway, here's a quote from Ari Fleischer, which I am able to produce because I partially remembered it. Google filled in the gaps.

"We have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction - that is what this war was about, and is about - and we have high confidence it will be found."


Ari Fleischer was answering a question. He was asked questions about Iraq/WMD constantly by the Washington press corp. Does the noise generated by this mean the White House itself was overemphasizing the WMD related rationale?

Perhaps the media was distorting the news like Chomsky claims?

[peptoabysmal]

It it already pledge week again for the "Not In My Name" organization? :D

[Cain]

Originally posted by corplinx
Ari Fleischer was answering a question. He was asked questions about Iraq/WMD...

And why oh why do you think that is?

constantly by the Washington press corp. Does the noise generated by this mean the White House itself was overemphasizing the WMD related rationale?

Perhaps the media was distorting the news like Chomsky claims?

Look: the White House has considerable resources to get its point of view out. Fleischer, Rice, Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush all know how to "stay on message". In addition their reliable surrogates on the opinion pages, talk radio, and cable news networks will essentially repeat the same arguments and claims.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Chaos He cannot have a fair tribunal in Iraq. People there are biased either towards him (former cronies) or against him (everyone else).

Therefore, the tribunal must be international. Not because an international tribunal would likely get to another conclusion, but because this is the proper thing to do.

Wrong and wrong. First off, the trial is not going to be conducted by random peasants off the street, and it WILL have international input and observation. It can and will be as fair as it needs to be, and there is no serious evidence to the contrary. Secondly, modern international criminal courts ALWAYS defer juristiction to local courts, and ONLY act when local courts decide they cannot prosecute (ie, Yugoslavia). Since the Iraqis WANT to prosecute, there is NO legal basis for ANY international court stepping in over their heads. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, the reasons Saddam must be prosecuted rather than just taken out back and shot (namely, to catelogue his crimes in front of the world, demonstrate that dictators can be held accountable for them, and most importantly, give the Iraqi people control over their lives and their fate) are ALL better served by a trial by Iraqis. But then, much of the anti-war croud never really cared about the Iraqis.

Therefore the trial MUST be in Iraq, and NOT by an international crimes court. And that is where is will be. Makes me wonder why people are clamoring for an international tribunal when that simply will not happen. Oh, the impotence of the anti-war croud. I wonder if it chafes at them.

Why not? Turned into a psychic lately?

Doesn't take being a psychic to predict that Chomsky would oppose a Bush government decision. Seems like a fairly safe bet most of the time.

[Jessica Blue]

Originally posted by corplinx


Ari Fleischer was answering a question. He was asked questions about Iraq/WMD constantly by the Washington press corp. Does the noise generated by this mean the White House itself was overemphasizing the WMD related rationale?

Perhaps the media was distorting the news like Chomsky claims? Saving the world from WMD's may not have been the real reason the Bush administration launched into an invasion of Iraq, but to anyone with eyes and ears it was certainly the original public justification.

In the beginning it was almost all about preemption and WMD's, with the *liberation* a bonus side effect. As the war-talk progressed and the anti-war movement began to gain momentum, the coalition shifted tack and began to place more emphasis on liberation. In this way they could counter the scepticism of the International political community and the protestations of the anti-war crowd with a strong moral justification...that of Iraqi Freedom. This proved very effective...if you were against the war you must be pro-Saddam and want Iraqi's to continue to suffer.

If the Bush admin. wanted to democratize Iraq and transform the Middle East why didn't they say so from the beginning? They couldn't. Invading another country to force a regime change wouldn't come across as a powerful enough reason for war....people wouldn't like it and those whinging liberals were bound to make a fuss. The war had to be *sold* and whipping up a storm of fear over WMD's and terrorist links was a good selling point.

I remember John Howard's pre-war speeches very clearly. He followed the US line closely and sounded more like a man parroting a sales pitch than an independent priminister willing to encourage intelligent debate. When Bush taked WMDs so did Howard, when Bush played up liberation...again there was a strange echo here in Australia.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by corplinx


Okay, I'll bite. I think that Cain and Chomsky should support the arguement that the war was all about WMD instead of me debunking this popular urban legend.

A. Bush had a stated policy of regime change even before 9/11
B. Bush claimed we needed to take out Saddam because of his links to international terrorism as part of the war on terror
C. Bush claimed we needed to take out Saddam because of his unaccounted for WMD (and his propensity to use them in the past)
D. Bush claimed we needed to take out Saddam to stabilize the region
E. Bush claimed we needed to take out Saddam to liberate his people (a nice gesture since the west really screwed them by not supporting the post-Gulf I insurgency)
F. Bush claimed we needed to take out Saddam since Saddam was in violation of the treaty that was supposed to end the first Gulf War


Chomsky says:
"For example, the Bush administration's original reason for going to war in Iraq was to save the world from a tyrant developing weapons of mass destruction and cultivating links to terror. Nobody believes that now, not even Bush's speech writers."

This is rubbish and all of you know it.

I would say it was the primary reason, maybe not the only reason. Outside the (C) WMD argument, none of these other rationales carry the need for an invasion right now. The other goals are noble and good, etc., but we hardly follow or even want a policy that spends the blood of our soldiers for an invasion right now for those other goals. It raises too many questions about when we are going to get around to doing it everywhere else. There are a lot of a-holes in the world beyond Saddam.

I just get a whiff of the Clintonesque about the whole thing. I know what I thought then, that the administration knew there were WMDs and if we didn't ask we might as well go gas a pre-school ourselves and so on. Now I'm getting this "look closely at the record" stuff. As I recall I thought that was Bush's second main campaign position, that he wouldn't be "slick" like Clinton (The first was that he'd not get any action in the Oval Office).

I supported the war based on these two assumptions, which were overshadowed by a cynical hunch:

Assumption #1: They really had concrete knowlege of WMDs that they couldnt share publicly for intell purposes, as they wouldn't fib about that, would they?

Assumption #2: All that whining about "Slick Willie" and so on was a promise that the current adminstration would be straightforward and not mislead with precise language in matters of importance.

Cynical hunch: While the above is true the administration really just wants a non-Saudi base of operations in the middle east and wants to show Iran et. all what they have coming if they don't quit f*ck*ng around.

Of course, my cynical hunch needs a basis beyond realpolitik to at least give the appearance of "working within the international community." Cue the WMD hysteria. Too bad they couldn't find a real basis. Either they lied or they have no idea what they are doing. I'm trying to decide which is worse.

My problem with the whole thing is the fast and loose playing with the truth, and the fact that this administration has to be the worst of all time from a diplomatic standpoint. From ticking off allies to not understanding the culture they are trying to rebuild, they just seem to lack common sense and just figure that force and God will make everything good in the end...


Furthermore:
"The new reason is that we invaded Iraq to establish a democracy there and, in fact, to democratize the whole Middle East."

Did Chomsky miss all of the freedom and liberation talk in Bush's state of the union speech before the war? He is such an intellectual you know, that I am sure he actually pays attention to current events and watches the raw sources since the media manufactures consent.

The WMD's are Bush's blue dress. I remember back when talking to a Serious Democrat when the dress story broke. I remember telling him that Willie had had it if the DNA tests showed that was his, um, "genetic material" on the dress. He agreed. Then it was his "genetic material" on the dress. Willie spun right out of it and kept his power base, making the GOP look like weenies for trying to impeach. I never liked Clinton, but I was impressed.

This seems the same thing. Yes, Bush would often speak about rationales other than the WMDs. Now we know why, as those were bets that only a fool wouldn't hedge. Now that the WMDs aren't there, we get the spin that "this wasn't about WMD's."

Deja Vu.



I may have missed the quote where Bush said:
"Iraq was step one of our master plan to democratize the entire mideast". Would someone point out this quote for me? It's a bit bombastic, but it is pretty clear that this is part of the plan, that Iraq is to serve as a "model of democracy" or freedom or whatever buzzword. The idea being that a stable mid-east country will have a positive effect in the region, the "domino theory" only in reverse.

Chomsky just puts it in darkly threatening terms. It is just your (D) above. That's all.


Noam Chomsky is a great intellectual........



FOR ME TO POOP ON!

He has his good days and his bad. I think he's getting smeared unfairly right now.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Suddenly

I just get a whiff of the Clintonesque about the whole thing. I know what I thought then, that the administration knew there were WMDs and if we didn't ask we might as well go gas a pre-school ourselves and so on. Now I'm getting this "look closely at the record" stuff.

Chomsky says:
"For example, the Bush administration's original reason for going to war in Iraq was to save the world from a tyrant developing weapons of mass destruction and cultivating links to terror. Nobody believes that now, not even Bush's speech writers."

Well,...since no one "really believes this stuff about WMD's anyway"...let's fire up the wayback machine and see what leading democrats were saying before GWB came into the picture.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destrution and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.


For the original speeches and articles these are quoted from go to


Snopes (http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp)
They have posted the articles there to provide context.


Funny how the Dems have changed their tune. Now it's all about Bush's "lies"... apparently the long term memory of most dems has been damaged by all those years of peace pipe toking. :rolleyes:

-z

Hell, Hillary even gives us the added bonus of "links to Al Qaeda" but I haven't heard her called a liar by anyone on the left?? Why not?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Suddenly
I would say it was the primary reason, maybe not the only reason. Outside the (C) WMD argument, none of these other rationales carry the need for an invasion right now. The other goals are noble and good, etc., but we hardly follow or even want a policy that spends the blood of our soldiers for an invasion right now for those other goals. It raises too many questions about when we are going to get around to doing it everywhere else. There are a lot of a-holes in the world beyond Saddam. [/B]

You are correct in that the administration emphasized that the invasion should be as imminent as possible because we can't waste a second in invading Iraq to get those WMDs. That, however, leads us to the main question: A) Did Bush knowingly and willingly lie just so he can put an army right in the middle of middle east for tactical purposes B) was the intelligence so p!ss poor that we though we knew where WMDs were but nothing was there C) was the hole thing blow out of proportions where Saddam had WMDs but on some limited scale that it wasn't a right now situation.

I have not seen any real evidence for the A so the only thing that could be is something between B and C. Neither of those is a good thing, I agree, but it's in no way a conspiracy theory and I do believe the war was worth it.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by rikzilla



Well,...since no one "really believes this stuff about WMD's anyway"...let's fire up the wayback machine and see what leading democrats were saying before GWB came into the picture.



For the original speeches and articles these are quoted from go to


Snopes (http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp)
They have posted the articles there to provide context.

This would be a good rebuttal if I had made that point. I said that the Bush team talked up WMDs in advance of the invasion. Chomsky seems to be saying that now, after the invasion not even Bush believes that there were really WMDs there.

What showing that other people were wrong as well changes I have no idea. Bush launched an invasion based on his sooper seekrit information that Iraq was an immediate threat. Turns out that was incorrect.

Is Bush now saying "Whoops!, we messed that up, but there is still good to be done here. Saddam needed kicked out anyway. Intelligence can be a funny business and we will learn from our mistakes and work towards a stable peace blah blah blah ....?"

Nope. Now they are insinuating that this wasn't about WMDs, that the stability and the getting rid of Saddam was the priority. Very Clintonesque.

Funny how the Dems have changed their tune. Now it's all about Bush's "lies"... apparently the long term memory of most dems has been damaged by all those years of peace pipe toking. :rolleyes:

Right, right. When you get done shifting labels and tossing pointless insults let me know. I guess I'm a pot smoking Democrat now? I guess that is better than a cokehead Republican, but not by much.

If it was simply bad intel that caused the problem maybe the Bushies should acknowledge that and apologize for some of their bombast rather than claim that WMDs had nothing to do with it.

-z

Hell, Hillary even gives us the added bonus of "links to Al Qaeda" but I haven't heard her called a liar by anyone on the left?? Why not?

She is explicitly relying on the intelligence reports supplied by the administration. If in fact there was lying by the administration, her only fault is believing it. If it was just a case of crappy intel, then her only fault is trusting the president. Did you think about this, or did it sound nifty and incriminating so you threw it in there?

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Grammatron


You are correct in that the administration emphasized that the invasion should be as imminent as possible because we can't waste a second in invading Iraq to get those WMDs. That, however, leads us to the main question: A) Did Bush knowingly and willingly lie just so he can put an army right in the middle of middle east for tactical purposes B) was the intelligence so p!ss poor that we though we knew where WMDs were but nothing was there C) was the hole thing blow out of proportions where Saddam had WMDs but on some limited scale that it wasn't a right now situation.

I have not seen any real evidence for the A so the only thing that could be is something between B and C. Neither of those is a good thing, I agree, but it's in no way a conspiracy theory and I do believe the war was worth it.

No conspriacy. They just made the WMD case sound a lot more solid than it was as they had other axes to grind. When that rhetorical gamble fell through they as a political necessity changed tactics and started a subtle shift away from the WMD issue. No big deal. I think you can combine elements of "A"(the tactical purposes) into "B" and "C" and synthesize a decent argument for invasion. Tough to make nuanced arguments in this day and time so they went the simple route.

Turns out from a political point of view to be a solid stategy. Already the WMD claims are going down the memory hole via "close re-reading" and such. The public as a whole won't call them on it as long as some progress is made towards some positive goal, because the media and public have a short attention span and a general inability to grasp complex problems.

Actually, I don't see the real problem with the whole thing, besides the fact that they couldn't diplomacize (is that a word?) their way out of a wet paper bag, and I really don't care for the types of rhetoric being thrown around.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Corplinx quotes in alphabetical order .........................
A. Bush had a stated policy of regime change even before 9/11

The misleading word here is STATED, obviously Mssrs. Bush and company would not divulge secret planning to the American people or the world.

The Guardian Sept.6 2003

We now know that a blueprint for the creation of a global Pax Americana was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice-president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), Jeb Bush (George Bush's younger brother) and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences, was written in September 2000 by the neoconservative think tank, Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

Which shows the people who make up Bush's staff and shows the premises that were layed down were and are being adopted by George II

http://freedom2008.com/blog/archives/PNAC/PNAC.pdf ( PNAC.org is the official address, they are down quite a bit)

B. Bush claimed we needed to take out Saddam because of his links to international terrorism as part of the war on terror

BBC news 6 /18 /03

"Before 11 September 2001, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents and lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons, and other plans - this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take just one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. "

President Bush in his State of the Union address, January 2003. He made these comments in the context of the links he perceived between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.

"The terrorists have lost a sponsor in Iraq. And no terrorist networks will ever gain weapons of mass destruction from Saddam Hussein's regime. "

President Bush in his speech to the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia, September, 2003

"We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after 11 September, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America. "

"Some citizens wonder, after 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now? And there's a reason. We've experienced the horror of 11 September. "

US Secretary of State Colin Powell in a presentation to the UN Security Council, setting out the US case against the Iraqi regime, February 2003.

"There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more. And he has the ability to dispense these lethal poisons and diseases in ways that can cause massive death and destruction. If biological weapons seem too terrible to contemplate, chemical weapons are equally chilling"

Secretary Powell is at odds with Cheany and Rumcfeld ( read Bush policy ) so altho these words were spoken by him , if you think they other then the Pres's viewpoint you are more foolish then I give you credit for.
10/7/02

There are more examples.

C. Bush claimed we needed to take out Saddam because of his unaccounted for WMD (and his propensity to use them in the past)

Bush 7/14/03 oval office,
"The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power, along with other nations, so as to make sure he was not a threat to the United States and our friends and allies in the region. I firmly believe the decisions we made will make America more secure and the world more peaceful."

The Nation mag. link : http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=866

Question: You often speak about the need for accountability in many areas. I wonder, then, why is Dr. Condoleeza Rice not being held accountable for the statement that your own White House has acknowledged was a mistake in your State of the Union address regarding Iraq's attempts to purchase uranium. And, also, do you take personal responsibility for that inaccuracy?

Bush: I take personal responsibility for everything I say, of course. Absolutely, I also take responsibility for making decisions on war and peace. And I analyzed a thorough body of intelligence--good, solid, sound intelligence--that led me to come to the conclusion that it was necessary to remove Saddam Hussein from power."

June 2003 Mirror
Bush told the US people in his weekly radio address at the weekend: "For more than a decade, Saddam Hussein went to great lengths to hide his weapons."
"In the regime's final days, documents and suspected weapons sites were looted and burned."
"Yet all who know the dictator's history agree that he possessed chemical and biological weapons and that he has used chemical weapons in the past."

Bush produced nothing to prove Saddam had WMD.

He could only say: "The intelligence services of many nations concluded he had illegal weapons. The regime refused to provide evidence they had been destroyed."

"We are determined to discover the true extent of Saddam's weapons programmes, no matter how long it takes."
Admitting that "dangerous pockets" of Saddam loyalists still remained, he added: "As we establish order and justice in Iraq, we also continue to pursue WMD.

CBS News June 13 '03 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/18/iraq/main559261.shtml

"I know there's a lot of revisionist history going on. But he is no longer a threat to the free world," Mr. Bush said as he promoted his domestic agenda at a community college in a Washington suburb.
Asked what Mr. Bush meant by "revisionist history," Fleischer said, "the notion that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction before the war."

BBC News. com http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2995794.stm

"This nation acted to a threat from the dictator of Iraq. Now there are some who would like to rewrite history; revisionist historians is what I like to call them," the president said.

Bush Cincinatti 10/7/02
"Bush "The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."

Bush in the oval office w/ Kofi Annan, taking questions
"Q Mr. President, thank you. On Iraq, what steps are being taken to ensure that questionable information, like the Africa uranium material, doesn't come to your desk and wind up in your speeches?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, let me first say that -- I think the intelligence I get is darn good intelligence. And the speeches I have given were backed by good intelligence. And I am absolutely convinced today, like I was convinced when I gave the speeches, that Saddam Hussein developed a program of weapons of mass destruction, and that our country made the right decision
http://lunaville.com/wmd/billmon.aspx
There are more

D. Bush claimed we needed to take out Saddam to stabilize the region

Not a lot of info on this one, I think this was an afterthought

Oaklohoma Daily http://www.oudaily.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2003/11/07/3fab1641da09a
"Every nation has learned, or should have learned, an important lesson: Freedom is worth fighting for, dying for and standing for, and the advance of freedom leads to peace," Bush said. "And now we must apply that lesson in our own time.
"We've reached another great turning point, and the resolve we show will shape the next stage of the world democratic movement."
As he has in the past, Bush portrayed U.S. efforts to install a new government in Iraq as a key to democratizing the rest of the Middle East, calling it a potential "watershed event in the global democratic revolution."

E. Bush claimed we needed to take out Saddam to liberate his people (a nice gesture since the west really screwed them by not supporting the post-Gulf I insurgency)

This also was an ex post facto declaration to make the war look good in general ( never mind the man behind the curtain) . No evidence for this.

F. Bush claimed we needed to take out Saddam since Saddam was in violation of the treaty that was supposed to end the first Gulf War

President Bush has underscored the coming weapons declaration as an important test of Saddam's compliance with a recent U.N. Security Council resolution ordering him to declare and relinquish all weapons of mass destruction or face "serious consequences."

"That declaration must be credible and complete," Bush said. "Any delay, deception or defiance will prove Saddam Hussein has rejected the path of peace."

Fox News.com 12/3/02 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,71973,00.html
In a speech Monday, however, President Bush contended that so far in the inspection process, "the signs are not encouraging" that the Iraqis will "cooperate willingly and comply completely."
The Bush administration alleges Iraq retains chemical and biological weapons that were missed during the 1990s inspections and has not abandoned its nuclear weapons program.
Bush also said the Iraqi declaration on weapons, required by the United Nations by the end of the week, "must be credible and complete."

CBS News 11/09/02 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/09/attack/main528789.shtml

President Bush said the resolution (1444) "presents the Iraqi regime with a final test" and warned that if Saddam Hussein fails to cooperate, the United States will not hesitate to take military action to eliminate its suspected nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs
that quote was 2 for 1 ( nice blur the stated cause to the UN and the shift to WMD ).

Powell 12/20/02 http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/12/19/192703.shtml
"We are doing everything we can to avoid war. The president's made that clear," said Powell while giving the official U.S. response to an Iraqi disarmament declaration.
"But if war comes, the only thing I would say about the nature of that conflict is that it will be done in a way that would minimize the loss of life, and it will be done to be accomplished in as swift a manner as possible.
"And for the purpose of getting rid of weapons of mass destruction and liberating the Iraqi people," he said.

Look I could go on and on . The point is that all your "rubbish" seems to be yesterdays headline news without the spin.

I have tried to use only Bush quotes ( that was a laugh fest ) with one or two exceptions. I could have used the Hundreds of quotes and statements to the press and the UN by Cheany,Rumsfeld,Rice and Powell as official position but you asked for Bushisms.

The first problem with trying to nail this sordid Jello to a wall is , you ask all the questions in a manner that must be answered of intimate knowledge of Bush's plans before the war , when they were secret . That raises two different problems one is that even under the FOA act , we are not private to classified info of brainstorming sessions of the Prez and friends. The second is that the majority of the justifications for war are ex post facto rationalizations for his war.

The reasons that many quotes are vague is for three reasons. 1 Plausable deniability, 2 The reasons.given are expressed by the appropriate mouthpiece and 3 that most reasons ( as I have stated before ) are post war justifications for the war. 4? Wiggle room from the Presidentcy built of lies.

If you have a problem with my sources , You disprove them. Other then that you remind me of the phrase by Aerosmith " Your all up in the koolaid, and don't even know the flavor. Translation: Better to be thought a fool then to speak and remove all doubt- A.Lincoln.

Do us a favor and stop meeting our expectations.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
Corplinx quotes in alphabetical order .........................
A. Bush had a stated policy of regime change even before 9/11

The misleading word here is STATED, obviously Mssrs. Bush and company would not divulge secret planning to the American people or the world.


I believe Colin Powell and others had gone on the record stating their policy towards Iraq was regime change, I could be wrong. My memory isn't what it used to be before I got married.

[LFTKBS]

Originally posted by Grammatron
Since when? As far as I know the reason remains the same; Saddam was supporting terrorism, did not report what he did with his WMDs . . .

Remember when we were told that we knew where the WMDs were, and that we just had to go in there with some soldiers and get them? Because Dr. Blix and the UN were obviously incompetent for not finding them? Remember that? When we knew that they were there, and we knew where they were, and we just had to pop on over and get them?

Where are they?

Why did Saddam prefer to hide in a hole in the ground than use his WMDs to inflict some goddamn MD? Why didn't the retreating Republican Guard (wow, that hits close to home) use those widely available WMDs against us? Saddam used them on the Kurds, why not American troops?

If your answer is anything close to "he knew there would be repurcussions in the form of N, B, or C attacks from the United States," then why were they so dangerous that we had to invade right now now now now, like a pack of petulant, impatient schoolchildren?

This is ridiculous. We're funding a private war because Bush is beholden to PNAC, and because that dirty Ay-rab tried to kill his own personal daddy, even after Saddam and Rummy played kissy-face during the Iran-Iraq War.

"Oh, no, we superJesus Compassionate Conservatives are just trying to liberate these poor opressed souls, using the blood of the American poor rather than that of our Andover-schooled John and Tiffany Richf*ck. It's 'cause we care."

Yeah. Apparently not enough to do something about that maniac Karimov in Uzbekistan, because I don't know, they had him over for caviar served off of the asses of young Laotian boys last month and he's white or hasn't pissed off someone's son yet or something. I don't know. The hundreds of guys in suits who don't do actual work beyond deciding who to fire, who to assassinate, or who to conquer just sort of run together for me now.

Do you think for one moment that any of these men - Bush, Hussein, or Karimov - give or gave one half of one ***** about you? Your family?

None them wish to govern; all wish to rule.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by LFTKBS

This is ridiculous. We're funding a private war because Bush is beholden to PNAC, and because that dirty Ay-rab tried to kill his own personal daddy, even after Saddam and Rummy played kissy-face during the Iran-Iraq War.

Blah blah conspiracy blah blah.

Please see my response to Suddenly and his response to me for my answer to your so-called post.

[LFTKBS]

What, you think I just make this stuff up?

From "Rebuilding America's Defenses," a September 2000 report by the Project for a New American Century, contributed to by, among other people, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz:

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor." (p. 51)

"While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein." (p. 14)

Full text from original source. (http://newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf)

Blah blah blah.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by LFTKBS
What, you think I just make this stuff up?

From "Rebuilding America's Defenses," a September 2000 report by the Project for a New American Century, contributed to by, among other people, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz:

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor." (p. 51)

"While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein." (p. 14)

Full text from original source. (http://newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf)

Blah blah blah.

I think you simply read too much into this stuff. In the end it's just a conspiracy theory. No one denied Saddam had WMDs -- not even the French -- people just doubted that it was as immanent as it was told to be.

[Chaos]

Originally posted by Grammatron


I think you simply read too much into this stuff.

I imagine that, in the 1930´s, some people were told that they were reading too much into this "Mein Kampf" stuff...

Be wary of the beginnings, I say.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Chaos


I imagine that, in the 1930´s, some people were told that they were reading too much into this "Mein Kampf" stuff...

Be wary of the beginnings, I say.

NAZI's have been mentioned...thread is now closed....

....move along....nothing to see here.
not to be taken too seriously
BTW: Suddenly,

As a lawyer for the terminally guilty you do a much needed job giving competent legal representation to the vile. Budweiser salutes you Mr. Champion-of-the-guilty man!

Since your occupation has molded your instincts to come to the aid of those who do not really deserve your expertise, I cannot fault you for your natural gravitiation to the democratic camp. You merely cannot help yourself.

Your job has however not really prepared you to function in polite society. You see lies and either find ways to believe them, or plea bargain your way around them...you see truth as a weapon poised at the throat of your case.

I forgive you....you cannot help yourself, it's not your fault....perhaps it was your overbearing father, your abusive mother, or your bleak childhood in the projects??? Perhaps your mind was warped by that priest who took you to that dark nook behind the altar?? (These arguments sound familiar?) ;)

No, the democrats should not be faulted for their skewed perspective, we should look into the root causes of their insincere doubletalk, then seek through massive government spending to eliminate those causes. ;)

-z

(Posted in a spirit of "congratulations" to Lee Boyd Malvo's defense team. Thanks so much for sparing the life of a young man who so brutally and thoughtlessly caused such grief in the DC metro area. Those forgotten victims are "so last year" after all.) :mad:

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by rikzilla


NAZI's have been mentioned...thread is now closed....
Awwww.

....move along....nothing to see here.
not to be taken too seriously
BTW: Suddenly,

As a lawyer for the terminally guilty you do a much needed job giving competent legal representation to the vile. Budweiser salutes you Mr. Champion-of-the-guilty man! That's "alleged vile" and "alleged guilty" dammit!!

Since your occupation has molded your instincts to come to the aid of those who do not really deserve your expertise, I cannot fault you for your natural gravitiation to the democratic camp. You merely cannot help yourself. Five years ago some friends told me the same thing after I convicted Clinton in a mock impeachment trial, so you may be on to something here. I just hate authority. Must have been all those concentration camp stories my great aunt told me when I was 3. Pretty sure that warped my mind in some way... (whoops - another Nazi reference - this thread is really closed now...)

Your job has however not really prepared you to function in polite society. You see lies and either find ways to believe them, or plea bargain your way around them...you see truth as a weapon poised at the throat of your case. The first sentence I cannot with a straight face deny. Or would I want to. I'm an unabashed drop-out from "polite" society. After that I would respectfully dissent, you lousy wanker.

I forgive you....you cannot help yourself, it's not your fault....perhaps it was your overbearing father, your abusive mother, or your bleak childhood in the projects??? Perhaps your mind was warped by that priest who took you to that dark nook behind the altar?? (These arguments sound familiar?) ;) Nah. It was Reagan that did it to me.

No, the democrats should not be faulted for their skewed perspective, we should look into the root causes of their insincere doubletalk, then seek through massive government spending to eliminate those causes. ;) Like throwing them in prison?

-z

(Posted in a spirit of "congratulations" to Lee Boyd Malvo's defense team. Thanks so much for sparing the life of a young man who so brutally and thoughtlessly caused such grief in the DC metro area. Those forgotten victims are "so last year" after all.) :mad:

I don't know what to think about that one. He is only 17 after all, and he isn't exactly headed to club med either. I think they have a few more shots at him in different counties and so on so he's not "safe" yet.

Plus you might want to blame the jury. They are the ones that spared the kid's life. It's not the lawyers fault the jury fell for their argument. What happened to that "personal responsibility" thing you conservatives seem to harp about?

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Suddenly


I don't know what to think about that one. He is only 17 after all, and he isn't exactly headed to club med either. I think they have a few more shots at him in different counties and so on so he's not "safe" yet.

Plus you might want to blame the jury. They are the ones that spared the kid's life. It's not the lawyers fault the jury fell for their argument. What happened to that "personal responsibility" thing you conservatives seem to harp about?

Suddenly,

All kidding aside, on a purely intellectual level I am in awe of you and your important and frankly dangerous chosen profession.

On another, admittedly baser level, I see you as a scumbag lawyer trying to put a murderer...etc...back on our streets.

So, mixed feelings are the order of the day where you and your colleagues are concerned.

As far as the Malvo case goes, I think the kid deserves to get the shot. But then again, I was one of those people looking nervously around while pumping gas during his rampage. Also, on the monday night that Linda Franklin was shot, my wife was singing at a restraunt/bar called "Pistone's" which is just across the street from the Home Depot in Fairfax county. I remember when the report scrolled during the Monday Night football game... woman shot in parking lot in Fairfax by sniper....I remember feeling like I was going to barf until I reached her on the phone. I can't imagine what Mr. Franklin felt as he was spattered by his wife's brains.

So, even though normally I'd share your reservations about executing such a yound offender,...this guy I'd fry in a NY minute. I guess that's why they took the trial out of our area.

-z

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Suddenly,

All kidding aside, on a purely intellectual level I am in awe of you and your important and frankly dangerous chosen profession.

On another, admittedly baser level, I see you as a scumbag lawyer trying to put a murderer...etc...back on our streets.

So, mixed feelings are the order of the day where you and your colleagues are concerned.

As far as the Malvo case goes, I think the kid deserves to get the shot. But then again, I was one of those people looking nervously around while pumping gas during his rampage. Also, on the monday night that Linda Franklin was shot, my wife was singing at a restraunt/bar called "Pistone's" which is just across the street from the Home Depot in Fairfax county. I remember when the report scrolled during the Monday Night football game... woman shot in parking lot in Fairfax by sniper....I remember feeling like I was going to barf until I reached her on the phone. I can't imagine what Mr. Franklin felt as he was spattered by his wife's brains.

So, even though normally I'd share your reservations about executing such a yound offender,...this guy I'd fry in a NY minute. I guess that's why they took the trial out of our area.

-z

If you recall I also spent some time while pumping gas last summer considering fields of fire with my head on a swivel, looking for possible snipers. The shooting seemed to be moving up the Kanawha valley towards where I live, and there ain't a whole lot of gas stations here. They still haven't caught that guy yet, although the shootings have stopped. One night during these shootings, my wife was delayed coming home from her singing (some kind of classical choir type stuff) for several hours. We don't have that kind of local media so I didn't know if there was or was not a shooting, but it wasn't a very happy time. So I know somewhat of what you speak.

Funny thing is if they did catch the guy there is every chance I'd at some point participate in the defense.

I think my opinion w/r/t Malvo is greatly affected by the theories that claim that the human brain does not fully develop w/r/t responsibility usually until the very early twenties. I've found that consistent with my experience dealing with people who in their teens did something quite vile and are now behind bars likely for good. Some are just scum, pure and simple. However, there are those that seem to understand now what they maybe couldn't grasp back then. The irony is that these are usually the people that tell me that they to the most extent deserve their fate.

I don't think youth excuses this sort of thing, but it does bug me a bit when we are killing teens and giving 12 year old boys life without parole sentences.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Chaos


I imagine that, in the 1930´s, some people were told that they were reading too much into this "Mein Kampf" stuff...

Be wary of the beginnings, I say.

Well you can run around scream it's the end of the world all you want, I'm not going to stop you. But frankly, there are far more scary stuff in bible, koran, torah than in that link. If you want to worry about something, worry about that.

[shecky]

Originally posted by rikzilla


NAZI's have been mentioned...thread is now closed....


Interesting how conservative nuts used the Hitler analogy with Hussein before the war, yet selectively toss it out the window when it's used against them. :D

[Chaos]

If it is Nazi comparisons that bother you, Skeptic et al., how about this:

I suppose that in the 19th century, people were told that they were "reading far too much into this Mr. Marx´s rants".


Face it. You have a long, long history of ignoring the real threats, and when things finally get ugly, of blaming the others for everything.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Chaos:
I imagine that, in the 1930´s, some people were told that they were reading too much into this "Mein Kampf" stuff...

I imagine that the people who were telling them this were the same people who maintained a diplomatic solution could be reached with Hitler and that Churchill was a washed out war monger?

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Shane Costello


I imagine that the people who were telling them this were the same people who maintained a diplomatic solution could be reached with Hitler and that Churchill was a washed out war monger?

BINGO!!!

lol

Yes, that arrogant, unilateral, simplistic war-monger Churchill...

Doesn't he realize the world is complicated and not black and white as he sees it?

He refuses to work through the Leauge of Nations (You know the one that made it illeagal for weapons to go to the Ethopians as they were attacked?)

Why can't he be sophisticated like us?

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Chaos
If it is Nazi comparisons that bother you, Skeptic et al., how about this:

I suppose that in the 19th century, people were told that they were "reading far too much into this Mr. Marx´s rants".


Face it. You have a long, long history of ignoring the real threats, and when things finally get ugly, of blaming the others for everything.

Interesting...

You know for about 40+ years there were thousands of US troops stationed in the FRG, because the Soviet Bloc was indeed a real threat.

Or was it?

Was it a case of the US trying to steal German natural resources like the US always does to other countries?

BTW,
Who was being blamed for this?

And right now, who is the "real threat"?

I am not trying to flippant Chaos, but you made some very broad statements there. I am just trying to figure out what you mean.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Shane Costello
I imagine that the people who were telling them this were the same people who maintained a diplomatic solution could be reached with Hitler and that Churchill was a washed out war monger? That's what I was thinking. The analogy was wrongly used. Reading too much into the threat of Hitler and reading too much into the threat of Saddam.