Paul Pillar at the National Interest on "Never Forget the Iraq War":
And related to that was the larger pattern of how many Americans allowed themselves to be duped by the war makers. That's right: allowed themselves to be duped. There have been many complaints by people who supported the war about how they were misled, and indeed Americans were misled. But they were able to be misled because they got themselves swept up in a political mood that was stoked and exploited by the administration. Even a halfway careful examination of the prowar sales campaign could have seen through it, including such things as a phantasmagorical alliance between the Iraqi regime and al-Qaeda.
Finally there are the prime promoters of the war. The lesson to be drawn about them is how atrocious the war showed their judgment to be. They ought to be so discredited by now that no one listens to them any more. But here's the scary part: people do still listen to them. As Christopher Preble observes, “Most of the president’s Republican challengers are reluctant to cross the neoconservative cheerleaders for the war who, inexplicably, still have great sway over aspiring chief executives.” Many of those cheerleaders are still prominent members of the policy-influencing Washington elite and still writing and talking about the very sorts of things on which they showed such terrible judgment in the case of Iraq. Some of them are even cheering for yet another war, against another Middle Eastern country with a four-letter name starting with I, and with their cheering featuring familiar old themes about weapons of mass destruction, links with terrorism and the like. Those people ought to be reminded at every turn about the Iraq War and their role in promoting it, and asked repeatedly why anyone should believe a word of what they are saying now.
Kristol
Kerry
Debbie Wasserman Schultz
Thomas Friedman
Jeffrey Goldberg
David Remnick
Ehud Barak
Robert Wexler
Robert Kagan
Condi Rice
Bill Keller
David Frum
Mortimer Zuckerman
Clinton
Christopher Hitchens
Ken Pollack
Update: Earlier version of this post included Bernard-Henri Levy in the march of shame. Wrong. He wasn't. Apologies to BHL.
Well, noone will listen to Christoper Hitchens anymore, so I guess that must be success.
Are you joking? That you would censor from discussion on the merits of disagreement about some historical event.
The test of whether someone should be listened to, is if their current proposals make sense or not.
The better argument, not the better shunning.
human reputation is based on actions. for better or worse.
and our assessments of judgment are inevitably based on someone’s reputation for good decisionmaking
Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.
An enemies list?
is witty really being serious here? So, cuz phil might have taken money from his mom’s purse when he was a kid, he can’t “cast the first stone” against those who cheer-leaded non stop for aggressive war(s) that ended up killing hundreds of thousands and displacing millions?
you’ve got to be kidding me.
And yea, it is an enemies list: enemies of humanity
Richard Witty says: “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.”
THWAP!
JC: “Mother, sometimes you REALLY PISS ME OFF!”
Mr. Witty: yes, after a megadeath and the destruction of our economy, those who lied and cheered Iraq and us into this horror might well want to look for a job other than “pundit” or “foreign policy adviser.”
A war criminals list. A complete investigation. Application of information. Enforcement of national and international law going after those who created, cherry picked, disseminated and knowingly repeated the WMD lies. Trials. Accountabiliy. Prison time. If teason was committed…..
At the very very least put the following WMD war criminals in orange suits and make them clean up the road sides. You know like folks do who get busted for selling marijuana etc,
These individuals knowingly sold the WMD lies to the American people. And are responsible for taking the lid of an ethnic caldron that resulted in hundreds of thousands dead and injured in Iraq. Mllions displaced. The following are responsible for young American men and women joining the military based on that “pack of lies”
Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Feith, Rumsfeld, Rice, Stephen Hadley, Colin Powell, Cambone, Luti, Wurmser, Micheal Ledeen, Micheal Rubin, Reuel Marc Gerect, John Bolton, Judy, “I was fucking right” Miller, Bill Kristol, Pollack, David Frum..the list is long.
The world needs an Iraqi Simon Wiesenthal
Can you imagine what witty would say if someone would have said that to survivors of the Holocaust who demanded that Nazi war criminals be held accountable. “uh those of you without sin cast the first stone”
What a stupid thing to say
When the sin in question is drum beating for an illegal war that killed hundreds of thousands if not millions of people that posed absolutely no threat whatsoever to me & mine, I’m pretty comfortable casting stones.
not stupid if one believes that the end, israel getting away with its land theft of the palestinian homeland, justifies the means, ethnic cleansing, apartheid & slow motion genocide.
There’s no need to refer to these people as enemies–even though they bankrupted American for no good reason. Why don’t we just call them calamitously poor thinkers and let it go at that?
how creative duscany.
Richard Witty said, ‘Another threadjacking by me.’
i actually burst out laughing at his first line, and that’s a rarity.
Well, noone will listen to Christoper Hitchens anymore, so I guess that must be success.
how he manages to get so many first comments is baffling. he must refresh the front page every 30 seconds to keep track of when posts go up! or maybe he keeps a closet of elves around as helpers.
I get one out of twenty first comments Annie.
Most of them are delayed for a more “democratic” timestamp.
Hitchens hated your religion, Witty. He hated everyone’s religion, it’s just that Jews like you are militant and less numerous, which makes you ideal for throwing at Muslims (and Christians).
Hitchens hated superstition.
He hated political religious superstition and ideological superstition.
I’ve never conversed with him, but I expect that he would have respect for mine, which is much much more about daily intentional presence and accountability. (The Hebrew word Hineni.)
Given that your faith is about accountability, perhaps you could speak to some of your neo-conservative coreligionists about accepting responsibility for the disastrous war with Iraq (and the equally unnecessary upcoming war with Iran).
Hitchens wrote the forword of the book “Open Secrets Israeli Nuclear and Foreign Policies” by Israel Shahak.
Did he offer his mea culpa to that regime by signing on to its heinous agneda on Iraq?
Your “daily intentional presence and accountability” will always be appreciated by someone like Hitchens who mainatined an impressive presence in the intellectual zone of ethnic cleansing but did nothing.
“The test of whether someone should be listened to, is if their current proposals make sense or not.
The better argument, not the better shunning.”
It would be nice if sometime you entered the real world and observed how it operates.
In the real world it is the people you label “dissent” who opposed the Iraq War and were shut out of the discussion. They were right and they are still shut out of the discussion. The only people taken seriously (the Serious People, as Krugman and others call them) are those who are willing to be wrong with the majority, along with someone like Barack Obama who was careful to couch his opposition to the war in bellicose “serious” terms, because he wanted to be accepted by the Serious People.
You never seem to get upset by the real shunning that takes place in the real world. You never get upset when advocates of injustice and war crimes are taken seriously and pay no price for it. You’re more upset because Phil says that Goldberg and Hitchens and Kristol and Clinton are assholes who should be denounced as such. I think I know why. When all is said and done, you feel your cause is safer in the hands of the people who were wrong about Iraq than it would be in the hands of the people who were right.
“Make the better argument”. You make me so tired–people “made the better argument” in 2002 and 2003 and they were ridiculed, mocked, attacked, and scorned.
You don’t have a clue Donald.
The better argument is the only non-coercive manner to determine good decisions in a democracy.
Censorship does not accomplish democracy. Enemies’ lists do not accomplish democracy. You work with who you’ve got, and with what they know.
You explore, you question, you apply skepticism as a value.
You don’t diminish skepticism as a value, you increase it as a value.
Skepticism of what others believe and skepticism of what your allies believe, SO that the better argument is what stands.
Can you point me to people who made the better argument at that time, that had conventional credibility, that were marginalized?
Please don’t say Chomsky, or Zinn. I like(d) them personally, but they were always intentionally dissenting, never assuming responsiblity.
Kristol, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rice, Ledeen etc did not give opinions they knowingly made up and promoted lies that resulted in death and destruction.
link to articles.chicagotribune.com
.
“You don’t have a clue Donald.”
“Can you point me to people who made the better argument at that time, that had conventional credibility, that were marginalized?
Please don’t say Chomsky, or Zinn. I like(d) them personally, but they were always intentionally dissenting, never assuming responsiblity.”
———————————-
You want someone who was opposed to the war and had what you call “conventional credibility” and yet was marginalized? Does the name “Al Gore” ring a bell? He was ridiculed at the time for his opposition. Are you really so clueless you don’t remember this? Do you ever think before you post? Talking to you one can’t assume you know anything–you have a bottomless capacity for convenient ignorance. But maybe you’re not faking it.
And listen to yourself–you deliberately put in qualifications to exclude all the people with a clear-eyed view of how US foreign policy really works and one doesn’t have to cite Chomsky or Zinn. “Never assuming responsibility”? WTF is wrong with you? What responsibility has been assumed by the people who advocated war and kept out dissenting voices? If you read carefully you would have known that plenty of people were skeptical of the Administration’s case for war on technical grounds, political grounds, legal grounds and oh, yes, sometimes even moral grounds. But they didn’t receive the front page coverage. Obviously that’s okay with you. You’re more upset that the marginalized people who were right might want to point out that the “Serious People” were wrong about virtually everything.
Here is a mainstream writer describing how the press covered the runup to the war. You live in your own little world, or you wouldn’t need to read this.
Michael Massing article on press coverage
I thought of another name–Mohamed ElBaradei. But, hey, scary Egyptian. No credibility there.
Also, of course, outside the US people in general were much less impressed by the Bush Administration case for war. But they’re just foreigners, I guess. They don’t count either.
dissenting is not assuming responsibility? even when it’s risky, as it invariably is after a dissenter’s country goes to war and s/he doesn’t shut-up?
“Censorship does not accomplish democracy. Enemies’ lists do not accomplish democracy. You work with who you’ve got, and with what they know.”
There’s nothing wrong with trying to marginalize people who exhibit catastrophically bad judgment, especially when there are plenty of other people around with good character and better sense.
You know Mr Witty how your neighbours who argued against the war were asked to “Love it or leave it” and was denounced by the the neocons as traitors and appeaser like that Navile Chaimberlin?
Can you point me to people who made the better argument at that time, that had conventional credibility, that were marginalized?
Making the better argument? That’s surely not what it was about. “Conventional credibility”, what exact animal is this?
But what if we stay with the oponents: Russ Feingold and Edward Kennedy among others? 23 aginst the use of force against Iraq in Congress,
NAYs —23 Akaka (D-HI); Bingaman (D-NM); Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV); Chafee (R-RI); Conrad (D-ND); Corzine (D-NJ); Dayton (D-MN); Durbin (D-IL); Feingold (D-WI); Graham (D-FL); Inouye (D-HI), Jeffords (I-VT); Kennedy (D-MA), Leahy (D-VT); Levin (D-MI); Mikulski (D-MD); Murray (D-WA); Reed (D-RI); Sarbanes (D-MD); Stabenow (D-MI); Wellstone (D-MN); Wyden (D-OR)
133 against 296 for the Iraq war Resolution: H J RES 114 in Senate .
*************************************************************
Among foreign policy experts Zbigniew Brzezinski, top military brass,, nuclear weapons inspector Scott Ritter, Morton Halperin (CFR), Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski (military), twenty seven retired diplomats and military commanders: Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change. Retired military intelligence officer and Arabist: Pat Lang, to name only a few.
: Opposition to the Iraq War.
Concerning the legality of the Iraq war:
Benjamin B. Ferencz, Nürnberg prosecutor, Prof of international law, opponent of the war on legal grounds.
As well as several hundred thousands of Americans you probably would consider rabble?
I suppose you didn’t notice all the scandals that haunted the Bush administration either, did you?
Donald,
Why do you imagine support for the war, or opposition to criticism of the war?
Can’t a question just be a question?
My point is partially that the people that could have made a compelling and forceful argument, didn’t.
Blaming others, like the press, or the lied-to enemy list is not that responsible. It doesn’t make change, it only moans.
“Why do you imagine support for the war, or opposition to criticism of the war?
Can’t a question just be a question?”
I don’t doubt that you opposed the war. But what you did here (which is typical of most of your contributions) was either very stupid, ignorant, or trolling for the sake of trolling. Leander did a superb job listing “respectable” people who opposed the war. If you did even the slightest bit of serious reading back in 2002-2003 you’d have known there were plenty of “respectable” people who thought the Bush Administration case was weak and that the war was a bad idea. There’s simply no way someone as interested in Middle Eastern issues as you purport to be could have been unaware of that.
So why do you ask such stupid, trolling questions? I think that consciously or not, you’re afraid of what might happen if the coverage of Mideast issues was better and if debates on the subject were more open and honest. You invariably jump to support the mainstream bias or attack critics of Israel or US policy. It goes way beyond your supposed desire for sensible discussion.
But who knows what motivates you to type such fatuous buffoonish nonsense? Maybe you just like the attention.
“My point is partially that the people that could have made a compelling and forceful argument, didn’t.”
Your point was wrong. I realize that the concept of you being wrong doesn’t compute, but if you could just wrap your head around it you’d find that a lot of otherwise mysterious contradictions could be quickly resolved. So in your mind the US went to war because there were a bunch of people sitting around who could have made a compelling and forceful argument, but didn’t.
But it turns out there were such people making such arguments, but they didn’t receive the same sort of attention as the proponents. Gosh, it’s almost like you are wrong.
“Blaming others, like the press, or the lied-to enemy list is not that responsible. It doesn’t make change, it only moans.”
This is beneath contempt. The implication of your own questions is that you didn’t know that there were people making the case against the war. You hadn’t heard of the positions taken by Mohammad ElBaradei or Al Gore or any of the people Leander mentions. Now whether that’s true or not, it is true that a great many ordinary Americans didn’t know that the case of Saddam’s WMD program (particularly on nuclear weapons) was very weak and experts said so. The reason they didn’t know that was because the press did a very poor job making that clear. Most people don’t have time to go to libraries or online and fact check what the press emphasizes. They depend on the press to do their job, but for the most part the press acted as a conduit for the Administration’s bogus claims. The NYT actually went to the extraordinary step of apologizing for their coverage a few years ago–I could find that if it really mattered, but it’s clear that you don’t give a damn. The whole premise of how our system is supposed to work is that the public is to be informed of the issues, if not by our government (no one should trust them), then by the press. The system failed most Americans on one of the most important issues that can face the nation. And you think that someone holding the press responsible is “moaning”.
You want respect, Richard? Earn it. But if I ran this blog I’d do what Richard Silverstein did a few years ago and restrict the number of your posts. Maybe you’d think about what you’d type then, or maybe, given the strain that might cause, you’d just vanish.
It was respectful question of “who do you think was important?”. “What ideas do you think were important?”
You took it as an offense, which it wasn’t in the slightest.
LeanDor’s list of Congress weren’t posted by the time you did. My posts are routinely delayed now up to 20 hours before being let through, if then.
If you read lower, I stated that at the time that I couldn’t believe that the American Congress and UN would adopt a thesis that had been soundly rejected during the Clinton years, and that I was wrong in that assessment. I should have added that I, and the few million like me, could have raised our voices an iota.
My Congressman, Olver, and Senator, Kennedy, voted in opposition. Kerry voted for, but shortly after very quickly apologized for that (but still appears on Phil’s “enemies list”, photo an all.)
That my Congressmen were confidently opposed to the war (except for Kerry, a surprise), lulled me, and also made my extra voice less effective than it would have been if I had lived in Florida.
Bob Graham, chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence for ten years and co-chair of the House-Senate joint committee on Intelligence failures on 9-11, opposed the war vociferously, provided ample opportunity and resources for his colleagues to question the administration’s claims about Iraq and was ignored by his colleagues in congress and by the press.
Republicans wanted war. Democrats who had opposed Poppy’s Iraq war in 1991 didn’t want to risk their presidential ambitions by being painted soft on terror.
You hit the nail right on the head Donald. Every one of these people that Witty is defending are rabidly pro Israel.
Witty doesn’t give a damn about censorship or legitimate debate. What amazes me is that he believes we would fall for his gross dishonesty.
“What amazes me is that he believes we would fall for his gross dishonesty.”
He falls for it himself most of the time. I’ve never seen anyone better at doublethink.
He falls for it himself most of the time.
that’s a result of his grandiose self-perception combined with a firm belief that most people here thirst for his profound wisdom. ;)
You project so much Donald. You literally don’t have a clue, but shoot anyway.
Thanks for the permission, Richard. I think you are deeply confused and don’t understand the criticisms leveled at you.
So make them clearer, rather than louder and more contemptuous.
“So make them clearer, rather than louder and more contemptuous.”
Been there, done that, and everything in-between. Nothing works.
“Are you joking? That you would censor from discussion on the merits of disagreement about some historical event.”
Is it just me, or is this an astonishingly ignorant statement?
Richard, that’s selfless of you to stand in solidarity with the discredited.
Richard, if I only disagreed with your definition of Zionism and your approach/support of Israel and the situation with the Palestinians, that would be one thing. And if we agreed in other areas besides I/P, that would be great. I just find not only myself, but the other members disagreeing with almost everything you say. It just doesn’t make any sense that we can be the opposite of one and other no matter what the issue is. That only means there really is a difference between us that goes beyond I/P. I’d like to know what that is.
In 2002-3 there were so many rational voices from every class and every sector saying that a war was a bad idea and wrong. The US famously proclaimed that ‘diplomacy had failed’ or whatever and ignored the UN and the entire world to go to war with Iraq. All of the cheerleaders should be forever silenced as a result. They were wrong, everybody told them they were wrong. They ignored them and called for war. Many of the above faces got a ‘chub’ over it including Mrs. Clinton. Almost everybody said they were wrong. This is different, these people don’t deserve another chance.
Charon,
Don’t confuse a question for an assertion.
Can you name names of those that you admire for making the better argument?
I was one, but I doubt you would quote me.
See above. These were experts – not political pundits.
Mr Witty
What argument did you make back then ?
“Mr Witty
What argument did you make back then ?”
1. Containment was succeeding in limiting Saddam’s expansionism, military was unnecessary
2. Al Quaida was different than Saddam Hussein
3. It was personal and emotional to Bush, rather than good policy
4. Policy made on the basis of emotion, rather than entirely cool heads is a failure in process.
5. Energy conservation rather than wars for oil
6. War is endless, expensive, harmful
7. The argument for war was not made.
8. The post-Vietnam reluctance to war made sense
10. The war was not proposed to be paid for, just done
11. The American people were being railroaded as the basis of war.
I personally didn’t believe that the arguments being made by the Cheney group, that didn’t have sufficient merit to become policy during Clinton, suddenly had a critical mass of support in the state dept, CIA, defense dept, Congress.
That I was wrong about.
Richard, I think that’s a very good list of arguments. You must have done a thorough analysis without being swayed by the propaganda and disinformation that was current at the time.
Have you a similar analysis with list of key arguments regarding Iran and its nuclear program (of whatever nature you believe it may be)?
Hitchens,( God have mercy on his poor soul), is already out of the picture.
The rest of the smiling (or not) warmongers shoud not only be discredited,
but some should answer before the highest court for their active , conscious, calculated, intentional,deliberate,wilful participation in the war mongering, which cost many, many lives on both sides of the conflict, and of course tons of $$$$.
seconded!
You left out Perle, Bolton, Abrams, Wolfowitz, Cheney, …
It might be easier to list those who were against the Iraq war:
1. Ron Paul
2. ?
Kucinich was against the war. And I think maybe Howard Dean was. I doubt Obama was. Also Ralph Nader. Right about Ron Paul.
Millions nationwide 30 million world wide protested. The MSM ignored us. But hey like Obama and the rest say “move on , next chapter, turn the page, don’t be about retribution, witch hunts, vengeance” Just drive right over that huge pile of dead and injured Iraqi and American soldiers who joined the military based on the Bush administrations “pack of lies”
You know get to black Friday and buy your plastic crap from China. Go watch the game, do your yoga, get to your self help classes.
Millions nationwide 30 million world wide protested
yeah, and it garnered one paragraph on msm page E9 or something. lot of good it did.
I realized in that one thread that you put up saying you were sorry that one of the main reasons I keep posting in many places how many of us were out there doing every thing in our legal bags to stop that bloody invasion is that it clearly had no effect. None.
And what the hell are we going to do against this push to go get bad bad Iran? I would put money on that it is going to get ugly if Obama is convinced/ pressured by the racist bloody Iraq war criminals to overtly attack Iran or support Israel doing so.
” I would put money on that it is going to get ugly…”
It will be a huge price to pay for opening more eyes.
let’s see, circa one million protesters in nyc, hundreds of thousands more in s.f. and los angeles (among other u.s. communities), not to mention a huge turnout at anti-iraq war rallies in london and other european cities.
Here is avery interesting article:
“U.S. behind deliberate murder of Qadhafi: Russia.
Russia has accused the United States and NATO of large-scale violations of human rights during the military operation in Libya, including the deliberate murder of its leader Muammar Gaddafi and the killing of hundreds of civilians.
The NATO forces “made the overthrow and murder of the Colonel their main goal,” said the Russian Foreign Ministry in its first report on the state of human rights in the world.
Citing unnamed sources, the report said the order to liquidate Qadhafi was given to U.S., French and British commandos. The Russian Foreign Ministry details numerous instances of mass killings of hundreds of civilians and destruction of infrastructure in NATO bombing raids in Libya.
The U.S. is the main target of the Russian report, which also criticises the human rights record in Britain, Canada, Finland, the Baltic states and Georgia.
Russia took President Barack Obama to task for his failure to shut the “odious” prison at Guantanamo Bay and accused the White House of sheltering officials guilty of torture.
“The situation in the United States IS a FAR CRY FROM the ideals proclaimed by Washington,” said the Russian Foreign Ministry in a 90-page report posted on its website.
“Old systemic problems of American society are growing more serious, including racial discrimination, xenophobia, overcrowded prisons, unjustified capital punishment, including the execution of innocent people, imperfect electoral system and corruption, ” said the report
link to thehindu.com
The US is losing a lot on the international scene. It’s starts to be viewed as a global hegemon, a threat to the wordly peace, a global policeman that starts to behave more and more like a lunatic.
“Starts to”?
You are right.
It’s been doing it for a long while.
Now ,I guess ,it is in the final ,detrimental for the whole globe, stage of its lunacy.
Make no mistake, I find these people repugnant – but I don’t think we should let the rest of american society off the hook. There was an undeniable blood lust here after september 11th, I realize that many of the above had plans for Iraq long before sept 11th – and in truth, the first iraq war really never ended- but what these people did was tell people what they wanted to hear.
And how many so called “liberals” voted for Clinton after her cheerleading? Or continued to praise hacks like Hitchens? How many continue to shill for O? We may want to blame it all on these people, and to be sure, there is a special place in hell for them, but lets be honest:
I have seen the enemy and he is us.
Prior to the invasion I was obsessed with listening to the MSM along with the so called liberal media (Rehm ToTN), Democracy Now. Also listened and read from the radical right. On the Rehm show and ToTN along with CSpans Washington Journal you could hear a few experts questioning the intelligence. But if you were/are a 8-6er and turned on the news for an hour in the evening you would hear Bush, Cheney etc repeating the false WMD lies…clip after clip of Wolfowitz and the rest repeating the lies. CNN, MSNBC etc host never ever really questioning the repetitive deadly song and dance. Matthews did sarcastically call Kristol, Frum “the best and the brightest” when they would repeat the WMD hooey. But the MSM never went as far as having Ritter, McGovern, Kathleen and Bill Christison (all former CIA analyst) and others who were questioning the validity of the intelligence on their programs.
So if you were/are a 8-6er had an hour for the news you were not getting challenging quesitons etc. Just the lies. The American public should not have to fight so fucking hard for accurate information and challenging questions asked by MSM host.
And the rumor is out there again that Obama may drop Biden (who voted for the Iraq war resolution) and pick up Clinton who we all know did so. Clinton is far more of a warmonger than Biden. Far more. She is completely with the I lobby on Iran
Kathleen, I’ve been hearing that rumor as well. It’s a party thing. She’s VP, then she gets to be Prez in 2016.
The planned line up was clearly Clinton, Gore then Hillary. The focus on Clinton’s extra marital blowjobs got in the way. Then Gore not accepting Clinton’s help, the Supreme court 2000 judicial coup, turning Kerry’s military service against him, holding back and keeping quiet Phase I and Phase II of the SSCI’s findings on the pre war intelligence. Which Jason Vest, Scott Ritter and others told us about before the invasion.
Clinton is just way way to much of a war thug for many. I think we will see Elizabeth Warren running in 2012. I keep thinking about Obama picking up Warren as a VP now (Brown really not so bad). What a message to the American public and the banks. Although she might be able to do more as a Senator and set her up in another way for 2012.
I mean 2016
C’mon man!Show me all the peoples voices who were allowed to borrow the MSMs mouthpiece to stop this idiotic war.We were powerless,and we were marginalized by every MSM undercount of our protests.
And 60+ years of lies conditioned enough people to vote for what they were told was an Islamic threat to our civilization,and Saddam was elevated to Hitlers son,and OBL the devil’s spawn,while we actually are that tool of beezlebub.
The Ziomonsters are the impetus for every nation destroying policy,from globalism to the WOT,and their fruits are poison.
Don’t blame Americans for being fed this poison,24 hours a day,365 days a year.
And the accounting for this perfidy is still in the future,but it will be done.
Pogo never had this dilemma,his protagonists were all American patriots,unlike todays.
Dahoit – what if I told you that alot of the anti-war sentiment at the time of the Iraq war was partisan?
What If I told you that a Democratic president a few years before instituted a crippling sanctions regime in Iraq that killed hundreds of thousands – also used missile strikes at will, waged war to expand NATO in the balkans, destroying multi-ethnic nation states, displacing millions — And was cheered?
What if I told you that alot of the people who vigorously condemned the war in Iraq, cheered for intervention in Libya, are calling for it now in Syria and have said nothing about the current president’s radical expansions of executive power?
You would probably say alot of these people are full of shit.
Dahoit Americans were fed this poision 24 hours a day seven days a week. And the MSM did ignore the hundreds of thousands on the streets in DC, New York and across the nation. And the crowds were made up of working class Americans far more than the Occupy Wall Street crowd( and I do support what they are doing). Really working class crowds and the MSM ignored the crowds. Celebrate OWS’s use of social media they can move right around the walls of silence in the MSM. Although the MSM finally started endlessly covering OWS…which is wonderful. But the millions who tried to stop that invasion were ignored.
And the big question will the American people be willing to ramp it up against the eventual hard push for an overt military intervention into Iran?
How far are people willing to go this time to stop another bloody fuck up being pushed by Israel and the I lobby?
despite the intense drumbeat for war, opinion polls before the war began found only 47-60% support* for an iraq war. after it began, of course, those numbers went up, as rally-round-the-flag sentiment
won out.
*wikipedia, Popular opinion in the U.S. on the invasion of Iraq
I disagree Dan Crowther.
I didn’t see ‘bloodlust’ in the American public immediately post-9/11 nor even in the days and weeks following. Where I was, people jammed public places to give blood — it was irrational, when you think about it, but people took positive steps, not hateful ones. I also think that is a more natural response of people — to come together in sorrow and pain, yes, and also confusion. But with the need to do something to regain their equilibrium, NOT to exact revenge. THAT motive, revenge, was TAUGHT — propagandized — to the American people, millions of whom resisted it every way they could, in letters, protest demonstrations, petitions and the like.
No, Dan, I reject the notion that the American people as a community failed; we were lied to, repeatedly, deliberately.
I will grant that many have now drunk the Koolaid — Christian evangelicals and now Catholics trotting in their footsteps seem genetically wired to follow wretches like Santorum, the king of the Islamophobes — who WAS, you will note, voted out of office by an overwhelming majority — 59% vote for Casey, in 2006 (sadly, Casey is almost the equivalent of Santorum in douchebaggery, a major proponent of the Nunn-Lugar fear-mongering tactic to achieve nuclear non-proliferation).
Americans have been and are badly led by ALL of their institutions — political, economic, media, and religious. It is particularly painful to see how poorly the Catholic church has conducted itself in the past 10 years. It should hang its head in shame.
This is the same country that got lied to about the USS Maine, Pearl Harbor, the Gulf of Tonkin ( am I missing any?)…and on to Iraq, Libya, Iran coming soon..funny how we “always fall for it” when it comes to the US government wanting to kill people….ahh, shucks, they got us again! Nonsense.
What if I told you that American History is full of stories about the country being “lied” into war….We’re either stupid or we like war, one or the other…
“Americans have been and are badly led by ALL of their institutions”
They cant lead if you dont follow.
We can talk all we want about giving blood, “finding” whatever after that happened – but that’s a bunch of hooey. If George Bush was a Democrat, no way are there millions of people protesting…. Now, there is NO arguing that, is there?
How many of these same people now want war with Iran on the table?
Sort of out of Iraq and all ready into Iran according to Seymour Hersh as well as others. I lobby and Israel…WINNING
yea, and Steve Clemons is in there cheering them on. Clemons is the worst kind of weasel — the kind that plays both sides of the fence and takes responsibility for neither.
what a liar. Clemons & his pals wouldn’t know Moral if it bit ‘em in the arse. Killing people by the thousands to “re-order the internal workings” of their nation is NOT moral, it’s invasion and murder. And the US doesn’t do invasions and murders to EXPAND the “freedoms and rights of citizens” but to liberate them from control over their own resources.
yes!
Barack Obama is a neoconservative, too. I know it’s difficult for many to accept this fact since he agreed (reluctantly) to withdraw troops from Iraq. But this withdrawal gives him cover to wage his covert slaughter campaign in the Middle East. Remember, Obama hired neoCon technocrat Bob Gates for defense secretary. There is no reason to assume Obama has fired any neoCon leftovers from the Bush administration who currently inhabit positions at the Pentagon. I’m stunned the opponents of the Iraq war are silent on Obama’s covert wars which are creating new terrorists everyday.
You may well be right. A small part of me wants to believe that he is a well-intentioned coward whose venal nature and naivete causes him to act the way he does.
But then I come to my senses.
I believe Obama is well-intentioned, but he is also naive and ignorant. He trusts his military and State Department advisors, many of whom are neoCons. I think the same can be said of George W. Bush. He was merely following the advice of people he trusted, people who were neoCons. I wouldn’t be surprised if Obama has never heard the word “neoconservative.” He is literally tone deaf and stupid.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Obama has never heard the word “neoconservative.
oh please. he doesn’t live under a rock.
He lives under the rock of American Exceptionalism. People who have a moderate level of confidence in Obama’s intelligence are the same people who regret voting for the man. Perhaps you are one of those people?
But he is a very safe fence sitters on too many issues. I watched him closely in the Senate..he played it safe at almost every turn. I really question whether he would have voted against the Iraq war resolution in 2002 if he would have been in the Senate. Now he might have followed Senator Durbins no vote (Durbin was on the intelligence committee then)..a note to Hillary. But I question whether OBama would have had the balls to take a stand with the other 22 Senators who voted no. Obama is going along with the go get Iran hooey. Very very dangerous and destructive while repeating “turn the page” on Iraq.
i didn’t say anything about confidence levels, i was astounded you would suggest he’d never heard the word neoconservative.
let’s see if you can find even one other person hear who might agree with you and express ‘surprise’ at the notion obama has ever heard the word “neoconservative”. granted the word might not be as well known as chocolate but it’s no secret to american exceptionalists, and others.
from Obama’s speech to AIPAC in 2008, after which AIPAC anointed him THEIR candidate, signified by Rahm Emanuel endorsement –
*** in other words, Obama’s withdrawal from Iraq is step one on performance of his plan to attack Iran –”my goal will be to eliminate this threat.” How much plainer does it have to be?
even though some critics saw through his veneer of progressivism, too many americans (this one included) fell for his “yes we can” & “change we can believe in.” not only that, but his criticism of the iraq war, his insistence that he’d close guantanamo, his words about combatting global warming, etc. etc. who knew that he was a f—— liar?
Obama had no choice but to withdraw. The UN Security Council resolution backing the U.S. occupation of Iraq expired on Dec 31, 2008 and a Status of Forces Agreement set by the Bush Adm between Iraq and the US that took effect after that. That Status of Forces Agreement allowed the U.S. to continue its occupation of Iraq for another 2 years. Now that has expired also and Iraq said “get out”.
Hmmmm interesting. Why would Iraq’s government tell the US to get out if their government is relying on the US army to stay in power?
Or is the talk about the insurgency an exagerration?
Why would Iraq’s government tell the US to get out if their government is relying on the US army to stay in power?
they weren’t relying on the US gov to stay in power. maliki made a unity deal w/sadr to support his candidacy. i think..it’s been awhile since i looked.
“get out” and would not give American troops the protection of not being held accountable by Iraq for war crimes
Mr.Gates was called on to rescue the Shrub from his disaster.Notice his retirement under the shrubs pal Obomba.
For my part, I believe that Pres. Obama fully intended to carry out his campaign promises and found himself trapped in the most incendiary and hostile political climate in the history of the US – by virtue of constant Republican pressure (and its vociferous support in the MSM) and the power of the Israel Lobby, he has been compelled to back off almost all positive policies and to capitulate if he wanted any chance of re-election.
Examples:
1. The Cairo Speech – he set out a commitment for peace to all the ME countries and in particular to commit the US in bringing about a peace agreement. Today, after the smoke has cleared from the incessant attacks from AIPAC and its MSM and Congressional minions, the 2ss is dead and he is fighting for his political life for votes in the Jewish community.
2. Pres.Obama asked the Gov’ts of Brazil and Turkey to attempt to broker a deal with Iran as to moving its supply of nuclear fuel to another country and when they succeeded, again a shitstorm of Republican and AIPAC bile that made it politically impossible to follow up on the agreement.
Other examples abound, but it is always the same story – the combination of intense Republican opposition and the power of AIPAC over Congress and his re-election chances have compelled him to back down or be politically destroyed. It appears that many posters would prefer to see him do the “right thing” and die on his sword, but I would prefer him to have a chance to fight another day when the forces affecting his re-election would be much less powerful.
Would any of you prefer a Republican president – if so, who?
I agree with the statement about Obama’s intentions.
The world changed. AND, he did not have the skillset to take on this big big world and politics.
Implicit in some of the disappointment of Obama is an implied wish for someone who could just do it, rather than someone who has to get legislative approval, consider relations with a gamut of powers, and get funding.
A king, a dictator? Or, someone who entirely defers to legislative constitutionalism (Ron Paul).
“Implicit in some of the disappointment of Obama is an implied wish for someone who could just do it…
In the present US political climate, it is impossible for that “someone” to exist.
So how do you explian away appointing Geihner, Summers Bernanke…How was this change? How do you explain the appointment of “Israel’s lawyer” Dennis Ross to undermine I/P negotiations and stir up a shit storm with Iran?
I believe he had good intentions with health care and backed into a corner by the inusrance industry (go watch Obama’s Deal on Frontline) But on the I/P issue he went soft with Israel and the I lobby standing over him. On Iran he kneels to the I lobby. And how many innocent people have been killed with Obama’s drones not doves?
Can just see it an American drone with the word Peace written in blood running down the side of the drone.
Kathleen –
You’ve made my point – going soft on I/P b/c of the I lobby; Iran, ditto. As to AfPak, any move to disengage would be viciously attacked as “weakness”.
All poison for his re-election campaign.
On drones I have no answer other than concern about Pakistani sovereignty and the general American unwillingness to risk US soldiers if a machine can do the job. As to Ross, I can only speculate that the shitstorm over the Chas Freeman appointment led him down that path.
Micheal Scheuer has a good one up over at his website about the US Pakistan relationship. NON INTERVENTION. you probably all ready know Scheuer was the former head of the CIA’s Bin Laden unit.
he did have another alternative which was to appeal to the public for support in bringing the settler entity down to actual size. that he would have been successful is shown by the support that ron paul has garnered from his opposition to an iran war and advocacy for demilitarization. alas, either obama’s beliefs or his cowardly nature wouldn’t allow him to take this course. remember, too, that in 1992, when president george bush the elder withheld a ten billion dollar loan guarantee from israel, pending israel’s backing off from expanding its wb settlements, polls showed that overwhelmingly the public supported him. since he claims to be a student of history, surely he must have know this.
If he couldn’t muster enough public outrage when Netanyahoo refused the 90 day settlement freeze even after being offered massive bribes, do you really believe an “appeal to the public for support in bringing the settler entity down to actual size” would have had an iota of success when AIPAC, the Republicans and the right-wing MSM were done with him and his re-election prospects?
once again, president george bush the elder took on the israel-firsters and had the public’s support. and it’s not that he couldn’t muster public outrage against netanyahoo, it’s that he didn’t try. there’s something called the bully pulpit that’s available to president’s, but obama seems to be unwilling to use it.
People have to realise that those wars are not done in order to protect average people ( from both sides).
They are done in order to bring more business, more moolah to those, who are in Power.
They are using average, common people to obtain their Evil goals.
Let’s stop being “useful idiots” in the hands of the ruthless Power, that uses MainStreamMedia puppets to brainwash next generations of cannon fodder and passive supporters of the war, (tax payers money).
People, instead of watching some stupid shows about nothing ,should take their time and watch those videos.
This IS REALITY that surrounds us, not idiotic problems of Kim Kardishan , Lady gaga or some other medial “guru”.
link to youtube.com
link to youtube.com
link to youtube.com
Those soldiers in the above videos (10:59am) realised , that they’ve been used as killing tools in the hands of the Bloody Power.
They have to live knowing that they killed men, completely innocent human beings. The PostTraumaticStressDisorder starts kicking in.
One of the soldiers said: “I knew it was wrong, it was morally very wrong” , and he cried. If you have any heart in you ,you know that killing innocent, powerless people IS WRONG. IT IS very wrong ,and there is no excuse for it. NONE.
Soldiers, who were sent to fight those recent “American” wars are crying because they realised that what they did was very wrong, but what about those WAR MONGERS???
They are happily, joyfully, all smiles drumming for the next war.
Like NOTHING happened. Like nothing fuc….n happened.
I was with my WWII father at the VA in Dayton Ohio for the up teenth time over the last four years recently. Talked to one double amputee injured in Iraq. Joined like so many because of the Bush administrations lies linking 9/11 and Iraq. May Cheney, Rice, Feith, Ledeen and team burn in hell for eternity for these crimes against humanity
plus the younger generation being totally distracted by servitude to the various screens (tv, computer, iphone/pad/tablet).
In the article by Kampeas that you cited today, he mentioned that Peter Beinart had supported the war.
I didn’t see his name and picture in the list.
I thought that you admired Peter. Would you then include him on an enemies list for an opinion that he’s relented on on the Iraq War?
Another good man.
I know for a fact that after the discovery that there were not weapons of mass destruction and that the Bush administration knew of it, that John Kerry ranted at the Bush administration. I saw him speak to that effect.
How many people who want to blow up Arabs do you idolize, anyway?
To bad you never cared whether there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Witty. Google “fallujah birth defects” some time. See what you supported, and the people you support supported.
“Idolize”?
Are you serious Chaos?
I opposed the US involvement in the Iraq War. I just understand that others didn’t, and don’t desire to see them silenced for some litmus test, administered by people that guess all the time, and very often wrong.
Again these individuals did not just share opinions about what they thought about the run up to the invasion of Iraq many actively promoted it. Many were part of the lies teams that created, cherry picked and disseminated the “pack of lies”
EL baradei, Scott Ritter, Ray McGoven, General Zinni, Brzyzinski, Lt Col Karen Kwiatowski, Kathleen and Bill Christison, Jason Vest of the Nation< George Galloway, Flynt Leverett etc were not guessing about the false intelligence being promoted by the Bush administration and the Kristols of the lies or created by the Ledeens of the world. These experts, historians, military folks tried to alert the public that the intelligence was seriously questionable and seriously flawed. "A Pack of LIes"
Hundreds of thousands of people have died based on that "pack of lies" and those who are responsible for the lies should absolutely be held accountable. And never ever be listened to. Let alone be allowed to fill our air waves with more lies about Iran. Put these bloody fucks on trial
To the extent that someone really admits he was wrong about Iraq and doesn’t make excuses for himself or herself, then he or she might be worth listening to. Otherwise they are still in denial and their thinking is likely to be distorted by their need for self-justification.
What if they have mixed feelings?
Say, like Obama who opposed the war, but as President couldn’t leave it as an ultimate failure, but as a success, even if not of his choosing.
Saddam is gone. There is a parliamentary democracy in place in Iraq. The oil supply is secured.
Against, it cost many lives (American and Iraqi – some in Iraqi military, some in militias, some innocents) and much money, and a great deal of confusion and disunity.
Grey. Now past.
richard please, iraq is not a success at all. it is a nightmare. find me one iraqi who thinks it is a success because they do not exist. do some research before making completely stupid comments.
link to baghdadkassakhoon.blogspot.com
“Iraqis that have mixed feelings” (Skew to my and Donald’s points). The litmus test is about Americans’ views, no?
I named the features that some could consider a success.
Even on the Iraq War, I’m of the opinion that it is past. I think of the idea of a litmus test on that one way or another as idiotic.
I would expect some thoughtfulness, from those on all perspectives, to indicate that they were actually awake during the proposal, implementation, struggles, etc.
But, I expect that from dissenters as well as proponents, to demonstrate their credibility, that they think.
I originally opposed the war, not vehemently. I didn’t know, and knew that I didn’t know. I could tell that I was being lied to from day one, and that the reasons for considering entering the war were a mix of opportunisms, bluster.
I had and have a strong predisposition to NOT enter war, to seek ways to reduce the surface bluster of propaganda, but more importantly to reduce the need for the surface bluster. So, I emphasize energy conservation as a means to make war in the middle east unnecessary.
And, I emphasize peace between Israel and Palestine, rather than the revolutionary never-ending single-state struggle.
I felt that the people that I knew that were vehemently opposed to the war, were also vain, seeking to “I told you so”, but doing and proposing nothing.
Many had declared that the containment of the Iraqis prior was a “war crime”, that Iraq did not have its sovereignty, and that the sanctions were causing suffering, but no commentary on Saddam as even a contributing factor, even just to know clearly.
Untying the surface of the knot, but not the knot itself, which is built on human acceptance and simplicity.
At the time, even saying that the war was fought for oil, was considered radical. Not the “the war was fought for Israel” racist distraction.
RW: “Grey. Now past.”
Easy to just shrug off all those lives in three short words, isn’t it Richard?
You’ve really ended the year on a moral high.
“Grey. Now past.”
What does it being in the past have to do with anything? If it’s not in the past it hasn’t happened, you know. That’s what we amateur philosophizing types call a tautology. You only bring up this “it’s past so it doesn’t matter” argument when it suits you, since even you must recognize at some level its basic absurdity.
As for gray, it’s difficult to point to some horrific event which didn’t have some kind of silver lining. Examples are endless. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are dead and several million are refugees. The war proponents never once claimed that this was a likely result. It was the war opponents who predicted that sort of cataclysm. On sheer facts alone, setting aside morality, that makes the opponents right and the proponents wrong.
>> RW (re. Iraq): Grey. Now past.
What a cold-hearted, hypocritical, Zio-supremacist sonofabitch.
It has to do with maintaining an “enemies” list, especially one that even after noting that John Kerry came to resent being lied to, is still on the list.
Selective, somewhat arbitrary criteria, suppressive.
Not, ‘I tend to discount their opinions based on their passed conclusions’, but ‘noone should ever listen to them anymore’.
tell us how you really feel.
It has to do with maintaining an “enemies” list, especially one that even after noting that John Kerry came to resent being lied to, is still on the list.
you are a laugh a minute, witty. and how has poor, duped john kerry come to manifest his resentment at ‘being lied to’, professionally speaking?
there is no parliamentary democracy in iraq, only puppets put in place by the occupying power. and the lesson from vietnam is that once the occupiers leave, puppets don’t last more than a few months. the former iraqi interpretors seem to know this, as a recent article in the LA Times revealed that they’re pounding the u.s. embassy doors in baghdad for visas, so fearful are they of being killed for having sold out during the occupation.
Listen or not listen, to neocons, one part of the answer is to LISTEN LONGER. There was a rush to war. There should have been no rush. No-one suggested that there was a reason not to think long and hard about it.
Now we know why. Thank you, O Neocons!
Why? [1] To get more factual assertions from more sources and thereby get more facts. Like a trial in a court where they have plenty of time. [2] To evaluate lies and pressure-tactics and thus distinguish between those who advised in order to get a correct result and those others (neocons and many supine senators and others) who advised (or went along) in order to get a political result whether or not it made sense, whether or not it was based on lies, equivocations, slight-of-hand, etc.
We should thank those few politicians who voted “NO” or who counseled waiting and a longer discussion. We should create a “pledge” for all candidates that they will wait 6 months before voting in favor of a war-of-choice (or for presidential power to do as he likes, which is the same thing).
Of course they should be discredited, and they are amongst anyone with a brain. However, the fact that they still spout the same warmongering lies and are happy to tank the US economy with more insane wars without end, tells you how both government and media operate – and how in thrall they are to a tiny, unrepresentative elite of corporate, military and zionist power. When will the American people wake up and realise that the people who pull the strings have no interest in them or their welfare, but exploit them to the hilt in order to further their screwed-up narrow, hostile ideologies of power, segregation, apartheid and supremacism. The US has been hijacked. Ask the Koch Brothers.
It is not only in America. The same thing is going on in Europe, and probably in majority of the countries all over the world.
The staff that is going on , (for example) in Poland is also unbelievable. Too much to tell. Very upsetting as well.
It makes my skin crawl occasionally, because I wanted ,naively, believe that some of the things I’ve read few years ago were, indeed ,a “Conspirational Theories”.
Yeah, it looks like those were “conspirational theories” that weren’t brought to the daylight, yet. Many of them are still hidden in the dark corners of the internet ,but more and more people start researching them,and see LOTS OF truth in it.
It looks like “theories” that MainStreamMedia is feeding us daily are mostly propaganda lies, half-truths, manipulations.
Boycott MSM, don’t let them poison your mind, heart and soul anymore.!!!!!!!!!
Don’t pay them for lying to you.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Some people had reached the conclusion that the idea of a divergence of interest between the United States (perhaps the whole Christian world: Blair) and Israel is inconceivable. I don’t see any degree of separation between the Jewish, Christian and atheist members of this group. They got their following wind because 9/11 created the angry reaction – we have the same enemies, who hate us for our freedoms – of which Dan speaks. That militaristic illusion had an ugly cousin, the liberal or liberal-Christian illusion that They must be yearning for liberation by Us. I can still remember the deluded thoughts going through my brain on the way to work on Sept.12 that year. I don’t think I fully came to my senses until I had to watch Blair defending the Lebanon invasion as a matter of ‘principle’ – principle! So some of what went wrong is the fault of the likes of me.
I had never been a big fan of Israel – I think I was waiting, with remarkable patience, for the liberal Zionists (not that that term was in much British use then) to assert themselves. I didn’t see that the idea of Them Liberated by Us was a version of the Altneuland theme within Zionism, supporting that idea that Israel and the West are engaged in a single, indivisible and noble endeavour, the basic premise of neo-conservatism.
from the Intro to Book of Maccabees in the Jerusalem Bible, a Catholic product (John Cardinal Heenan, imprimatur, 1966).
The Maccabees family is, of course, the heroic model of modern zionism; Herzl concluded Der Judenstaat with the battle cry, “The Maccabees will rise again.” There’s a strand of Jewish thought — mentioned by Mark Braverman, among others, that Jesus was essentially a Maccabean who died resisting Rome’s encroachments on the Jewish people. Amy Jill Levine soft-pedals that thesis, and the late Hyam Maccoby is named as the guide of the person who wrote an entry in Matthew Bard’s Jewish Virtual Library (it’s also interesting that a google search using ‘Jesus Jew resist Rome’ returned a sermonette from google about how dismayed they were that the word ‘jew’ was used in a search; “indicates the possibility of antisemitism.” Wonder what would happen if ‘dago mafia’ were queried.)
anyway — back to the intro to Maccabees — after giving a brief chronology of the Maccabee fathers and sons and what each accomplished — mostly, fighting — the introducer divines the “intentions of the author [of Maccabees]–
(my emphasis).
Examined carefully, this is loaded with problems that permeate Christian interpretation of Hebrew Scripture, which make of that interpretation an unsustainable valorization of the historical reality that the original text recites.
Emotionally blinded by that sentimental and supernatural interpretation, ‘Christians’ disempower themselves; they cede power to ancient Hebrews/Yehud/Jews/Zionists/neocons — “the trustees of revelation.”
Jesus has an Obama problem: no birth certificate. But unlike Obama, whose father is known, Jesus’s father is NOT known. Rationally speaking, it is equally possible that Jesus’s father was a Roman soldier, a Persian merchant, a Buddhist or Confucian trader on the (later-named) Silk Road, a Greek, Phoenician, Canaanite, Samaritan, Anatolian, or a Jew. One scholar of the era has argued that the followers of Jesus hitched their ‘new religion’ to the Judaic tradition because in the very full Roman marketplace of religious ideas, depth of pedigree conveyed credibility; for example, Roman gods were identified with the older Greek myths to give them a legacy, much like Daughters of the American Revolution restrict membership to persons who can display their ticket stubs from the Mayflower.
The extent to which Christians have ceded power to Jews to interpret “their” religious beliefs (and their not yet recognized profound religious confusion) is reflected in an exchange in which a woman in the audience challenged Norman Finkelstein for failing to speak of the “spiritual call that Jewish people have to be in the land.” She identified herself as a Christian who attends bible study at her Presbyterian church where “older — 60-year old professionals . . .who are scholars” hold
Where to start to un-confuse this addled young woman who is incognizant of the difference between myth and history, of inspiration and fact, and has been more impressed by “Hollywood” and Sunday school tales that she refers to as the “history” of “scholars,” but who ultimately concedes that she does “not know much about either culture . . .” but who is nevertheless emotionally invested in her version of notions she has not critically analysed.
Finkelstein took the approach of professorial tact by emphasizing that the “spiritual” problem “is not what politics is about,” and it makes the problem “unresolvable;” the problem is and must be solved as a political problem.
Why is it not plausible that the U.S. invaded Iraq because:
A. The government and the American people were, after Sept. 11, 2011, keenly worried about a catastrophic terror event in the future? Iraq, being relatively wealthy, sophisticated, and–under Saddam Hussein–independent, had some potential to create the conditions or provide (wilfully or not) the means for such an event.
B. It wanted to remove some of the ability of and incentive to Arabs to take up arms against the United States? By creating a “democracy” and getting a U.S.-Europe-Israel dependent economy up and running in Iraq and elsewhere, you make it more difficult for an Arab country to take collective action against the United States or Israel (“democracy”) and make it so that Arabs have more to lose (economy).
So based on your 9/11 logic why is it that the US did not invade Saudi Arabia since 14 of the 9/11 terrrorist were from SA. Instead the US moved the military bases out of SA and into Iraq and I think Uz beky beky stand
Yesterday, anonymouscomments turned me onto a clip of General Wesley Clark talking about his book in 2007. Clark whacks Bill Kristol, and he talks about the “policy coup” that Wolfowitz, Perle, Rumsfeld, and the rest of the PNAC crowd pulled on the USA starting in 1991. His comments about Iran are prescient. Here’s the short 8 min version AC linked to:
link to youtube.com
The whole thing is here. The Q&A is half of it and great.
link to fora.tv
killer first link mrw, if anyone is lazy just skip to 5:15
Thanks for the links. Clark was pissed during the run up to the invasion you could see it in his face and hear it in his words. They (Feith, Bolton and the NSA teams intercepting communications on many of these folks) must have something on him. Since he only comes out so far with his objections. You know they went looking through Scott Ritters dirty laundry a
That is a great clip of Clark. He spells it out more clearly than he has in the past. In 2003, 2004 he would sort of dance around the issue but let his feelings out about how wrong it was in a more convuluted way. Slams it in that clip. That description of his meeting with Wolfowitz and Libby answering the door. These war thugs have been laying the bloody ground work for decades. The best description of the cherry picked lies that came out of the Pentagons Office of Special Plans is Lt Col Karen Kwiatowski’s “The New Pentagon Papers” And Jason Vest article in the Nation in 2002 “The Men from Jinsa and CSP. Stephen Green wrote some articles before the invasion that were serious alerts
When Clark stated that the purpose of the invasion of Iraq was to “destabilize the middle east” reminds one of the clear and purposeful fuck ups in the invasion. Sending in too few troops, protecting oil outlets while allowing Iraq’s historical treasure to be looted, Bremer disbanding the Iraqi army. The documentary “No End in Sight” confirms what many believe that this war thug group (Feith, Wolfowitz, Ledeen, Cheney etc) that conducted this “policy coup” did not want success in Iraq they wanted chaos, they wanted to take the lid off of the ethnic tensions so that the Shia and Sunni would knock each other off as well as Americans and contractors knocking Iraqi’s off. They intenitonaly sought to destabilize. I believe this.
Over the seven years that Peggy Gish spent in Iraq she said many Iraqi people believe this. They wanted to create death, destruction, chaos in Iraq.
Wolfowitz, Cheney, Feith, Miller, real psychopaths. No regard for the Iraqi peoples lives..they had an agenda to move forward with. And now that Target is on Iran
And Syria, as Clark points out in 2007. They already divided Sudan (as Clark note they would). That’s because Israel wants the N Sudan water. Or is it S Sudan?
The old united Sudan is also the largest African moslem country and also, significantly, the breadbasket of the desert Arab states (when Sudan is at peace).
The Apartheid israeli project specifically chose Sudan to force-plant a jackboot, to divide and rule an unstable Sudan by the barrel of a colonialist gun.
I mean you’d think that shitty little country’s got enough regional wars going for itself let alone stick it’s sulfur and brimstone nose into the continent of Africa – well, moslem Africa to be more precise.
So many wars to wage, so little time, eh israel?!
Phil, the perp walk is great.
control of the media is the talmudist first pillar of strength.
what? how does this relate to the talmud. could you explain. i am asking sincerely
good one phil, keep em coming
it was just the fotos i could grab in the active library of the site. i shd have put in wolfie and feith and all the rest but they weren’t there. bill keller!!! where’s bill!!! You left me out, Phil!
As for Beinart, well, he wasn’t in the library; and he has fessed up to his mistake… Right?
You still have John Kerry on the enemies list.
“fess up”?
Nixon had an enemies list.
Keller, Ledeen, Micheal Rubin, Judy Judy Judy. They would all look so good in orange jump suits on trial for their part in crimes against humanity
ledeen~caldron of fire!
what a war monger he is
have followed what he writes for a solid 10 years. A real war creep. Met him here at Ohio University during a Baker Peace conference (what the hell does Ledeen have to do with peace…absolutely nothing) Mearsheimer was also at the conference. About a year and a half before he and Walts book and paper came out. Had a great converatio with Mearsheimer after I had gone head to head with Ledeen. His fingerprints are all over those Niger Documents. Put that socio path on trial for heavens sake.
As someone fortunate enough to converse with Christopher Hitchens on numerous occasions, I can assure Richard Witty that he would have treated you with the contempt he treated all other mouthpieces who keep repeating the party line.
Did you hear of the debate between Hitchens and George Galloway?
Why do you consider yourself fortunate to have spoken with him? Is it because he was famous or because of his ideas? And if it’s due to his ideas, then what impressed you so much about them that you consider yourself “fortunate” to have spoken with him?
Well wadayaknowz Avi, even drunken polemicist warmongers have groupies.
You think you know my thinking?
You think I am repeating the “party line”?
Which party line would that be? Opposition to both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars?
Phil no pictures of Wolfowitz, Hadley, Cheney, Frum, Bush, Bolton, Judy Miller, James Woolsey, Wurmsers, in your photo archives.
i was just scrounging what i had. i missed bill keller most! oh yes and cheney and judy and scooter and meyrav!
Such a long list of those who were part of lying the US into Iraq. Could divide the list into those at the top war criminals like Wolfowitz, Cheney, Bremer,Feith , then those who knowingly pushed the lies and the MSM and others who allowed all of the lies to go unchallenged. Their crimes run from severe to less severe. But those who were completely complicit also need to be put on trial with those who committed the crimes against humanity not just “discredited”
wish you would have cropped the img of Bernard Levy, philosopher of the open shirt. NOT an image suitable for day-after-New-Years-Eve.
I haven’t read all the comments and maybe it’s been said already but for the sake of accuracy: Bernard Henry Lévy did NOT support the Iraq war.
The pressure got so intense in France that people like Lévy (or Sarkozy) who were probabably on the fence leaning toward support of the invasion dit not cross the rubicon and support Bush.
VERY FEW people in France supported the Iraq invasion. In a way, the support to Chirac was “patriotic” in the same way that the support to Bush was. Few people dared disagreeing.
thanks will update
Is there an actual ‘discussion’ going on re: whether or not those supporting war-crimes should be listened to? It’s maddening to read this tripe. Really.
Not only should these disgusting vermin be ignored they should be spat on, egged, shunned from public life. When they enter a grocery store they should be booed. When they walk into a gas-station they should be verbally assaulted. When they attempt to give speeches on anything not involving defecation, cow manure or any topic not involving shit, they should be body-slammed into the ground.
That’s the least we could do for the over 1 million dead Iraqi’s.
Is anything really discussing whether these sick bastards have a right to say anything to anyone about any more brown people? about democracy? about truth?
No more.
These vermin deserve no less than to be shunned from ever facet of public life. And that is if we choose the ‘nice’ route.
I agree iRevolt.
Me, I would ban them for ever wearing shoes – that’s about as “nice” as I can get.