Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditThis dispatch comes from brand new crack DC intern Eric Naing:
The House Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights and Oversight met today to discuss issues of sovereignty and stability in Iraq ranging from the country's longstanding financial obligation to neighboring Kuwait to its even longer-standing issues with the Kurdish people. But Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) seemed mostly interested in berating the Iraqis for their lack of gratitudeAt the hearing, Saleh al Mutlaq and former Iraqi interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, both members of Iraq's Council of Representatives, spoke about Iraq's future and the importance of the country's upcoming elections.
Mutlaq called for a "moral and responsible" withdrawal of U.S. troops saying that the invasion of his country was "irresponsible."
Worried that violence and intimidation from Iraq's ruling party could distort the outcome of the January election, Allawi stressed the need for election monitoring from institutions such as the United Nations, the Arab League and other NGOs along with the United States.
Then Rohrabacher opened his mouth.
"I have never heard one word of gratitude from the Iraqi people about the 4,300 Americans who lost their lives," he exclaimed.
"We went to Iraq to try and free your people and now we're being blamed for sectarian violence," he said. "Don't blame us because that type of bloodlust exists in your society."
A defiant Mutlaq responded, "You were the ones who pushed your troops. We did not invite you."
It was at this point that an exasperated Rohrabacher threw up his hands and stormed out of the room.
It was only in the aftermath of Rohrabacher's tantrum that Rep. Bill Delahunt (D-MA) quietly stated that weapons of mass destruction, and not Iraqi freedom, were the reason the U.S. invaded Iraq.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
shoulda thought of that before.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/17/2009 @ 2:33pm
"It was only in the aftermath of Rohrabacher's tantrum that Rep. Bill Delahunt (D-MA) quietly stated that weapons of mass destruction, and not Iraqi freedom, were the reason the U.S. invaded Iraq."
--GOLD! um...for your information...what that other guy got all huffy about...that's not why we REALLY went over there...by the way.
Posted by urmygyro at 09/17/2009 @ 2:40pm
A defiant Mutlaq responded, "You were the ones who pushed your troops. We did not invite you."
It was at this point that an exasperated Rohrabacher threw up his hands and stormed out of the room.
It was only in the aftermath of Rohrabacher's tantrum that Rep. Bill Delahunt (D-MA) quietly stated that weapons of mass destruction, and not Iraqi freedom, were the reason the U.S. invaded Iraq.
Rohrabacher is right and Mr Hayes, Rep Delahunt, Mutlaq are wrong.
Iraq broke a cease fire agreement and thus left itself open to a resumption of hostilities.
Perhaps Rep Delahunt is not a liar and merely "forgets" the language of PUBLIC LAW 107–243--OCT. 16, 2002
<AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002
Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105–338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;>
http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf
Perhaps Rep Delahunt "forgets" that he voted for the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act with the language making it US law to seek the removal of Saddam and to promote the emergence of a democratic govt.
But I doubt it. Just another lying Dem politician.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/17/2009 @ 2:42pm
"It was at this point that an exasperated Rohrabacher threw up his hands and stormed out of the room.
It was only in the aftermath of Rohrabacher's tantrum that Rep. Bill Delahunt (D-MA) quietly stated that weapons of mass destruction, and not Iraqi freedom, were the reason the U.S. invaded Iraq."
We have idiots posting here who still swear that we went wading into Iraq like John Friggin Wayne to librate the people of Iraq. Why would their representatives be any smarter?
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/17/2009 @ 2:56pm
I still think it deplorable that Reps. like Mr. Rohrabacher still insist that the Iraqis owe us a debt of gratitude. Can't he get another talking point? He's been at this for years.
Yes, it should take someone aback to hear of the 4,000+ soldiers we have lost, but when do we ever hear of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who were in the unfortunate situation of being in the middle of a conflict no sane human would ever wish upon themselves?
Posted by A.Cerrilla at 09/17/2009 @ 2:57pm
So, apparently, Rep. Rohrabacher doesn't care much for the fact that over 500,000 Iraqis have given their lives because we decided to invade, or the additional million who became refugees.....Yeah, I guess those don't matter to him, its all their fault because they have such bloodlust....This man represents what is broken with the Republican party. Everyone should be grateful that we decided to bring war and death to their front door.
Posted by millertime at 09/17/2009 @ 3:04pm
Everyone should be grateful that we decided to bring war and death to their front door.
Posted by millertime at 09/17/2009 @ 3:04pm
Yep, all wrapped in an American flag, served with apple pie. Praise the lord, amen.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/17/2009 @ 3:09pm
We have idiots posting here who still swear that we went wading into Iraq like John Friggin Wayne to librate the people of Iraq. Why would their representatives be any smarter?
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/17/2009 @ 2:56pm
So we can mark you down also in the column of those who either cannot read or just prefer to lie.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/17/2009 @ 3:27pm
The Dept of Defense should be renamed the Dept of Invasions & Occupations, as it did absolutely nothing on the day the US was attacked to defend its homeland, in spite of having been warned of the target years before & the method at least 6 weeks before.
But the farce continues, in Iraq, Afghanistan & at home ... not to mention on the 100s of US foreign bases that have nothing to do with defending the US from attack & everything to do with interests we never hear discussed publicly.
Posted by sloper at 09/17/2009 @ 3:39pm
The Dept of Defense should be renamed the Dept of Invasions & Occupations, as it did absolutely nothing on the day the US was attacked to defend its homeland, in spite of having been warned of the target years before & the method at least 6 weeks before.
But the farce continues, in Iraq, Afghanistan & at home ... not to mention on the 100s of US foreign bases that have nothing to do with defending the US from attack & everything to do with interests we never hear discussed publicly.
Posted by sloper at 09/17/2009 @ 3:39pm
But the farce continues, in Iraq, Afghanistan & at home ... not to mention on the 100s of US foreign bases that have nothing to do with defending the US from attack & everything to do with interests we never hear discussed publicly.
Posted by sloper at 09/17/2009 @ 3:39pm
Like most ignorant leftists, you have no concept of the budget savings from having staging bases around the world.
That doesn't mean we can't close more bases that no longer support our tactical supply needs. I also am in favor of closing some bases in England and Germany.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/17/2009 @ 3:53pm
Antisocialist -- The usefulness of "staging bases" in various areas of the world depends on the extent to which one believes that the United States has an interest in becoming involved in a ground war in or near any of those areas.
FYI, our foreign bases are not all meant to be merely "staging bases." Many of them are strategically placed for their "deterrent" effect. If the country in which such a base is located is attacked, the attack inevitably will result in damage to an American base and loss of American lives, therefore giving the US grounds to assist in the defense of the country that has been attacked.
However, with the end of the Cold War, both the need for a deterrent effect and the usefulness of many bases as staging bases has been diminished or eliminated.
Posted by taikan at 09/17/2009 @ 4:53pm
So we can mark you down also in the column of those who either cannot read or just prefer to lie.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/17/2009 @ 3:27pm
No, it's just that some of us can see through smokescreens and don't believe everything the government tells us when it comes to defense. I take government reports with a grain a salt because I know the reason they used the breaking of the ceasefire as an excuse was because they wanted to go in. They were itching to go into Iraq long before the cease fire breech happened and were looking for any excuse possible to walk accross those borders. I guarantee you with 100% confidence that even if Iraq had not broken the cease fire we would have gone in no matter what.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/17/2009 @ 5:00pm
That doesn't mean we can't close more bases that no longer support our tactical supply needs. I also am in favor of closing some bases in England and Germany.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/17/2009 @ 3:53pm
Yeah, I can't imagine we have anything to worry about from Germany or England anymore.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/17/2009 @ 5:02pm
Maybe we should fund a study to determine if there is a causal relationship between stupidity and arrogance. We invaded Iraq based on deceptive information with no justifiable cause and slaughtered over 100,000 Iraqi civilians for mercenary reasons. Expecting the Iraqis to be grateful is illogical. They did not want us in their country. They want us out of their country. We liberated no one, we simply stuffed billions of dollars into the coffers of Haliburton.
Posted by xlntcat at 09/17/2009 @ 5:04pm
The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 does not mention or require that the US overthrow Saddam Hussein's regime by force.
The Bush Administration lied to the US public about WMD, and when those lies were exposed, the reasons for the invasion kept changing.
Iraqi liberation is not a good enough reason for over 4,000 dead US troops. Iraq does not owe the US a debt of thanks for the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis.
And please don't bother wasting your time calling me a liberal, leftist or some other term meant to disparage or question my patriotism. I spent 24 years as a military wife watching my husband deploy, all the while proud of him for his service to our country. He was active duty when the US invaded Iraq, and even then, he was personally opposed to the invasion. I know his patriotism is without question.
Posted by WhatAreWeBecomingasaNation at 09/17/2009 @ 5:16pm
Again we liberals are illiterate liars. What a great thing it is to work with Hispanics and help out with social justice. It would even be better to equate that using a trillion dollars to keep your population healthy would be better than killing and maiming a 100000 civilians in an occupied country.Oh and by the way thanks for the economic lesson on military bases around the world. Next you can tell us how economical it was to build the billion dollar U.S. embassy in Baghdad.
Posted by whatizz at 09/17/2009 @ 5:28pm
Right on, WAWBasaNation, I am a lefty, but my dad was a lifer and my brother served 6 years during Vietnam, I know what you are talking about, I remember my Dad not wanting my brother going to Vietman because he thought it was a unjust war.
Posted by Denise29 at 09/17/2009 @ 5:29pm
anti-socialist, I supported the Iraq war but did so because I believed it was in the best strategic interest of the US to do so (Hussein was a cancer in the Middle East) but having said that, Dana is an idiot. You don't insult and alienate the leaders of a country that you wish to remain an ally over something as petty as their not expressing gratitude. We did what we did out of our own strategic self interest (at least as perceived by the Bushies), just because many Iraqi citizens benefit doesn't mean they owe us gratitude (except on an individual basis, such as when an American soldier risked his life to save an Iraqi, but this is not the issue, Dana sure as hell did not risk his life so he has no right to expect gratitude) Have you never heard of diplomacy? Pressing them on civil rights, or womens rights, absolutely because these are also in our own self-interest (a progressive stable Iraq being better than a medievil one), the fact that they are also right in themselves is an added bonus.
Posted by beihai at 09/17/2009 @ 5:30pm
Ya and Rohrabacher is an Idiot!
Posted by Denise29 at 09/17/2009 @ 5:31pm
What is worse is the fact that we "changed" the political and military dynamics in the region. We escalated the political instability of the region.Why do we as the most democratic country on earth spend twice as much as anyone else on military spending?
Posted by whatizz at 09/17/2009 @ 6:00pm
And where could that money be better spent?
Posted by Denise29 at 09/17/2009 @ 6:07pm
How about them "mobile biological weapons labs", the "fleet of un-manned aerial drones capable of reaching the United States and spraying chemical or biological weapons over a vast area", how about the "Al Qaida run Ricin factory in Northern Iraq".
If Americans arent grateful to Bush for killing Americans in order to get rid of the Iraqi weapons, then how do you expect Iraqis to be grateful when we kill them?
Posted by DPGrassley at 09/17/2009 @ 6:18pm
Rohrabacher was in the room with Ayad Allawi, who has expressed deep gratitude towards America for the invasion:
"We Iraqis are grateful to you, America, for your leadership and your sacrifice for our liberation and our opportunity to start anew. I stand here today as the prime minister of a country emerging finally from dark ages of violence, aggression, corruption and greed. Like almost every Iraqi, I have many friends who were murdered, tortured or raped by the regime of Saddam Hussein. Well over a million Iraqis were murdered or are missing. We estimate at least 300,000 in mass graves, which stands as monuments to the inhumanity of Saddam's regime. Thousands of my Kurdish brothers and sisters were gassed to death by Saddam's chemical weapons. Millions more like me were driven into exile. Even in exile, as I myself can vouch, we were not safe from Saddam. And as we lived under tyranny at home, so our neighbors lived in fear of Iraq's aggression and brutality. Reckless wars, use of weapons of mass destruction, the needless loss of hundreds of thousands of lives and the financing and exporting of terrorism, these were Saddam's legacy to the world. My friends, today we are better off, you are better off and the world is better off without Saddam Hussein. (APPLAUSE) Your decision to go to war in Iraq was not an easy one but it was the right one.
There are no words that can express the debt of gratitude that future generations of Iraqis will owe to Americans. It would have been easy to have turned your back on our plight, but this is not the tradition of this great country, nor for the first time in history you stood up with your allies for freedom and democracy. " www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44576-2004Sep23.html
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/17/2009 @ 6:50pm
We killed over 100,000 innocent Iraqis,mostly indiscriminately,ruined their country,done nothing to rebuild it,and this moron wants thanx? Granted,we lost over 4,000 servicemen and women,which is a disgrace. Tell you what Rory;Take a trip to Baghdad and walk the streets to see how many people appreciate what we "did". Also tell them that you were one of the neocons that lied us into the foolish invasion,subsequently hiring Blackwater to carry out your dirty deeds. You GOP assholes should be strung up in public for the needless death and destruction you championed to a nation that was no threat to us whatsoever. Bring Dick,George,Rummy,Rice,Card,et al with you so they can thank the whole disgraceful bunch of assholes that you were and still are. By the way Dana,from one disgusted US citizen to you,thanks for nothing.
Posted by walkman56 at 09/17/2009 @ 7:12pm
Allawi's comments referenced by rightwingnutcase above were made in 2004. The documented civilian deaths caused from violence is now around 100,000 people. How many undocumented deaths have occurred?
Maybe the Iraqis are not as grateful now in 2009.
Mr. Rohrabacher needs a pat on the back for a job well done and without one, he got his feelings hurt.
Posted by WhatAreWeBecomingasaNation at 09/17/2009 @ 7:12pm
"Allawi's comments referenced by rightwingnutcase above were made in 2004. The documented civilian deaths caused from violence is now around 100,000 people. How many undocumented deaths have occurred?"
Probably only about 30,000. Saddam was estimated by the Weekly Standard to have been killing 20,000 Iraqis a year in a 2003 article. There is no telling how many he was killing every year through his manipulation of the sanctions regime.
This means that by 2010, Saddam would have killed 140,000 people NOT counting the sanctions and assuming he embarked on no more campaigns of genocide. In addition, over 20,000 Iraqis have been saved by improved healthcare since the war.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/17/2009 @ 7:17pm
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/17/2009 @ 6:50pm
That said by a man (allawi) who was just given complete rule over Iraq by the US. Sure he is grateful. It was a Bush Admin gift for his help in creating the propaganda about WMDs. A long time corrupt politician doing what his benefactors wanted him to.
But a nice find wingnut.
Posted by Extraneous at 09/17/2009 @ 7:21pm
The World Health Organization in 2008 estimated closer to 150k deaths since 2003. So if nutcase is correct about saddam killing that many per year we are only a little worse than Saddam. Good to Iraq would have been better off without us.
Posted by Extraneous at 09/17/2009 @ 7:31pm
I'm sorry, I wasn't clear about my point. The number I am citing is of 100,000 documented civilian deaths caused by violence since our invasion. How do we account for those lives lost or the families destroyed by our invasion? And what about the toll it has taken on the families of US troops killed or seriously injured?
Posted by WhatAreWeBecomingasaNation at 09/17/2009 @ 7:32pm
Correction:
*is correct about saddam killing *20k* per year
Posted by Extraneous at 09/17/2009 @ 7:33pm
Simply mention the idea of any nation being grateful to the US and the America haters come out in force.
They cannot abide the idea of a Strong America that brings liberation from tyranny to others.
They cannot abide an America that is not submissive to leftist govts around the world and to global organizations like the UN.
Anything that humiliates and casts the US is good to these scum.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/17/2009 @ 7:34pm
antisocialist: do you really believe what you are saying? Or are you just trying to see how many people you can infuriate?
Posted by WhatAreWeBecomingasaNation at 09/17/2009 @ 7:37pm
"Good to Iraq would have been better off without us."
The far left doesn't take math.
Let's say the war killed 150,000. That is perfectly plausible.
I wrote: "This means that by 2010, Saddam would have killed 140,000 people NOT counting the sanctions and assuming he embarked on no more campaigns of genocide. In addition, over 20,000 Iraqis have been saved by improved healthcare since the war."
So, ignoring the sanctions, what about the 20,000 Iraqis we've saved by improved healthcare? If the war killed 150,000 people, then that gives us a net gain of 10,000 lives resulting from it. But, there is a bigger problem with your theory.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/17/2009 @ 7:50pm
The problem is something I have written and spelled out in the past:
If Saddam's divide-and-rule policies, which in fact were re-enacted by insurgents working with the very Baathist secret police who carried them out during his two decade long reign of terror, were prolonged, the consequences of the collapse of his regime would have been inevitable and the violence following it would have been on a far greater scale than what we saw following the actual collapse of Baathist rule in 2003 when Saddam died unless Saddam's sons were able to succeed him successfully. But even if they ruled Iraq for decades, they would only have brutalized Iraq further to ensure an even bloodier implosion unless there was a Saddam 3 to succeed them successfully.... there was only a choice between an implosion resulting in more deaths than the total number killed throughout the entire war, OR, say, 15 more years of Saddam followed by a few more decades under his sons followed by a few more decades under another Baathist dictator and maybe even possibly another one after that, OR some combination of these two options (i.e., Saddam's sons take over for decades, they die, and then Iraq implodes), OR an invasion. It is obvious that an invasion was the most humane possible option.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/17/2009 @ 7:51pm
http://tinyurl.com/ntb3uj "According to this article the Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled information on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq under Saddam Hussein's regime. That's probably low as its just the executions we know about and it doesn't include those who died because Saddam diverted money from the UN's humanitarian oil-for-food program into his own coffers, but we'll use it anyway. If we consider that Saddam Hussein was in power for 24 years, those 600,000 executions puts his yearly death toll at about 25,000/year."
This is not even counting the 250,000 or so Saddam killed in his two genocides in 1988 and 1991, or the sanctions or the Iran-Iraq war.
The Weekly Standard said in 2003 (in an article called "A Lifesaving War") the numbers were between 15-20,000. With a range of 15-25,000, I took the middle estimate of 20,000. In any case, 25,000 probably would have worked in the eighties, but Saddam was slightly more restrained at the time of the invasion, though it is hard to estimate.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/17/2009 @ 7:55pm
"That said by a man (allawi) who was just given complete rule over Iraq by the US. Sure he is grateful. It was a Bush Admin gift for his help in creating the propaganda about WMDs. A long time corrupt politician doing what his benefactors wanted him to."
I think he is a sincere and decent man.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/17/2009 @ 8:00pm
Why does everyone act as if Saddam would only have lasted as long as the war has?
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/17/2009 @ 8:01pm
How do we account for the Iraqis that were killed by Saddam when the US was supporting his regime during the Iran/Iraq war? Does that go on the plus side or the minus side for the US?
This isn't a bean counting exercise. We are talking about the lives of human beings -- US and Iraqi. And saving Iraqi lives wasn't the initial reason the Bush Administration gave us for invading. That reason came later.
Where does left or right come in? Are you saying that someone who opposed the invasion is on the left? There were many on the right that opposed the war. There were people in the military who opposed this war -- I'm married to one of them -- but they couldn't speak up.
Posted by WhatAreWeBecomingasaNation at 09/17/2009 @ 8:22pm
"saving Iraqi lives wasn't the initial reason the Bush Administration gave us for invading."
Either way, Bush has saved Iraqi lives by doing so.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/17/2009 @ 8:37pm
Ahh nothing like a little revisionist history from the fringe...
Where ARE those WMDs by the way?
Oh yes, that's right, Iraqs "massive" weapons program was smuggled out of the country in the middle of the night, right before Saddam went to hide in his hole to await capture.
Or wait, it turns out republican American leaders LIED about the weapons of mass destruction, so we could go on a $10000000000000000000000 humanitarian mission. Because after all, repugs are just so darn concerned about the well being of oppressed people.
Wingnuts make me fucking SICK. You lunatics lack even the tiniest shred of shame.
Posted by TexasFlood at 09/17/2009 @ 8:51pm
Don't you think it is ironic that GWB was a missing in action National Guarder and Karl and Dick were deferment guys. Then one day the got the keys to "the war on terror". I think it is shameful that this trio that hid out when it was their turn to serve has turned our military into a highly tuned police force. We continue to throw into this sinkhole. It's grand that we can have another permanent base in a country we fought in. Santi could sum it up in his economic feasibility study as follows: with only an initial investment of $1.3 trillion the United States developed 3 forward bases in Iraq.
Posted by whatizz at 09/17/2009 @ 10:18pm
LOL
Larry likes to think g-dub served honorably, dontcha know.
No point in arguing any of this with these people. They will not wake up.
Posted by TexasFlood at 09/17/2009 @ 10:38pm
LOL
Larry likes to think g-dub served honorably, dontcha know.
No point in arguing any of this with these people. They will not wake up.
Posted by TexasFlood at 09/17/2009 @ 10:38pm
He did serve honorably. You are delusional.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/17/2009 @ 10:45pm
I still am wondering how an experienced newsman like Dan Rather got ambushed by the Republicans so easily. I suppose it is all the color of money. The numerous Vietnam Vets that I have talked to did not speak highly of the guys who went to serve in the Guard. At least George did that. Dick and Karl snuck out of service .
Posted by whatizz at 09/17/2009 @ 11:04pm
There are even some so ignorant as to suggest that national guardsmen never served in vietnam even after you post the names of the units and their extent of service. Funny most of them still post the same ignorance time after time!
Posted by BigPasture at 09/17/2009 @ 11:40pm
He did serve honorably. You are delusional.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/17/2009
Bush used his family connections to get out of being drafted by getting into the Air National Guard and then Bush used his family connections to get out of showing up for the Air National Guard.
Posted by koroviev at 09/18/2009 @ 12:00am
I am just repeating what I was told .Are you breaking the story that GWB was in Vietnam. Maybe you want to tell us that Dick and Karl served with distinction in the Young Republican club. Weren't they like the USO?
Posted by whatizz at 09/18/2009 @ 12:02am
I know of two arch Reaganite conservatives who, more strongly than most Liberals, vehemently opposed the Iraq War and NEO-conservative insanity.
In particular, the late Jude Wanniski, conservative, WSJ editor and author of Free Trade book, key player behind Reaganomics, found evidence to dispute EVERY allegation about Saddam. No WMDs. Didn't kick out Inspectors, Clinton did. NO gassing Kurds. HRW still looking for "mass graves". They found a marked graveyard.
The case of murdering a town -- was dropped for lack of evidence.
Saddam even invited CIA or Marines to scour every inch of Iraq. WMDs under development to use against Iran (who Israel was secretly arming), never fully developed and dismantled in 1991.
Wanniski came up with these guys, knew Perle and them when they were with Scoop Jackson, knew Rumsfeld as a young senator.
As Wanniski said, Saddam did NOTHING WRONG.
Paul Craig Roberts, known as "the Father of Reaganomics", which he says was neither liberal nor conservative but instead innovative, has nothing but contempt for the NEO-cons and their insanity and war-mongering, as well as their wildly un-conservative money-is-no-object budgets, and their penchant for saying anything to advance their goals. Lying not as a character defect, but as a key strategy. Deeply Machiavellian, manipulation of the "Vulgar Many" (idiots like antisocialist) seen as a sport to them, and as a necessity to maintain Power, the key objective.
The way to rule per Neocons - Permanent War, global Waffen SS, fear and anxiety or terror, shaming dissidents --- they represent the far opposite of American ideals.
Posted by dilbertgeg at 09/18/2009 @ 12:48am
I forgot my closing point: conservatives like Wanniski and Roberts would be --- are --- considered radical communist American-hating Leftists today. Their conservative bona-fides, which they say never changed, have earned them no credit nor respect.
Ronald Wilson Reagan, who backed the slaughter of 200,000 barefoot and homeless peasants in Latin America, who were allegedly "communists" (yeah, people kicked off their land by brute force tend to develop "communist" attitudes, like "rebellion"), yet who lives on as an Idol in idealized memories, yes Ronnie would be considered a communist suck-up today by the Right Wing.
As a matter of fact, that's not mere conjecture. Reagan WAS called a pinko commie lover by some on the Right, because Ronnie had the audacity to meet with Gorbachev and not to threaten and insult him.
That's evidence of how bizarre and off the rails you guys have gone.
Posted by dilbertgeg at 09/18/2009 @ 12:57am
It's not theire fault dilbert.
The so-called conservative contingency 'round these parts (see: people with so little to do with their time they receive pleasure from coming to a place like this to be belittled) are merely cold war leftovers. So paranoid delusional the line between reality and what they make up in their heads has completely disappeared.
Antisocialist and happy and their pals are in the same sphere as the 9/11 truthers and other conspiracy nuts. And just to show how crazy they are, they actually accuse other people of being paranoid, while they froth at the mouth about the socialist takeover of the united states.
Now, while it makes for some seriously interesting ideas about the psychology of these people, that's about all they're good for. That and a nice hearty chuckle from time to time.
Posted by TexasFlood at 09/18/2009 @ 01:20am
This kind of imperialist, 19th century attitude makes you want to puke.
Posted by Communard115 at 09/18/2009 @ 02:29am
antisocialist: do you really believe what you are saying? Or are you just trying to see how many people you can infuriate?
Posted by WhatAreWeBecomingasaNation at 09/17/2009 @ 7:37pm
The answer to that question is both of the above. He's a right wing ditto head.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/18/2009 @ 06:01am
Lying not as a character defect, but as a key strategy. Deeply Machiavellian, manipulation of the "Vulgar Many" (idiots like antisocialist) seen as a sport to them, and as a necessity to maintain Power, the key objective.
The way to rule per Neocons - Permanent War, global Waffen SS, fear and anxiety or terror, shaming dissidents --- they represent the far opposite of American ideals.
Posted by dilbertgeg at 09/18/2009 @ 12:48am
Well done.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/18/2009 @ 06:04am
As a matter of fact, that's not mere conjecture. Reagan WAS called a pinko commie lover by some on the Right, because Ronnie had the audacity to meet with Gorbachev and not to threaten and insult him.
That's evidence of how bizarre and off the rails you guys have gone.
Posted by dilbertgeg at 09/18/2009 @ 12:57am
Agreed. And whats more, is we have a one party system now. We have the lets go to war at the drop a hat and help the almighty corporate world out GOP. And then we have the lets leave things as they are and continue to dole money out to the corporate world democrats.
Working people in this country have zero representation. We've been feed a line of b.s. about how our country works. Congress does nothing unless big business is in trouble. Then and only then do they do anything. The executive branch may as well work directly for the pentagon the way things stand. When we pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan and cut the military budget in half, then I'll start believing that the democrats actually have the American peoples' welfare in mind, but until then, they are on par with their GOP counterparts as corrupt and committing graft as the GOP is.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/18/2009 @ 06:12am
Posted by antisocialist at 09/17/2009 @ 7:34pm
Hypocrisy unbound....
"So, it appears that a consistent hallmark of leftist thought is the denigration of everyone that holds an opposing view."----Posted by antisocialist at 08/05/2009 @ 2:50pm
How the Tea-Baggers are Like ACT-UP posted by Christopher Hayes on 08/05/2009 @ 12:58pm
Posted by Mask at 09/18/2009 @ 07:44am
BTW, from Joe Wilson to Dana Rohrbacher....
what is up with these Congressional Republicans turning into Glenn Beck!??!?!??!?
Posted by Mask at 09/18/2009 @ 07:45am
Posted by antisocialist at 09/17/2009 @ 2:42pm
So, the US congress passes a law that says "we" should eliminate our Reagans former ally, but it "we" also kidnap people that want to do the same to George Bush? Didn't bin Laden post his diatribes for Larry to read? Should Larry be grateful that the WTC was brought down in an attempt to bring about a society more in tune with God?
I am surprised that Larry the false witness didn't bring up the UN resolutions, just after deriding the UN!
How dare the Iraqis be angry that the USA brought war and devastation to their country! Ungrateful bastards! They should be thankful that their country and neighborhoods are now divided by clan/sect/race via an 8 year sectarian war, and that Saddams wmds are now gone and that Al Qaida has been driven from their lands.
Posted by crabwalk at 09/18/2009 @ 08:03am
This is the conservative mantra,spew out enough material to infuriate people and sit back and watch. When things quiet down do it again. Anything promising, denigrate it and say no. Then on a slow day say that the opposition party won't discuss things with you.When that doesn't work yell,scream, and be inflammatory. Then tell lies and get people to articulate policy. Top that off with being on the cover of Time magazine. Any guess to the political leanings of that publication?
Posted by whatizz at 09/18/2009 @ 08:07am
Posted by antisocialist at 09/17/2009 @ 7:34pm
Where does the hatred come from?
Where does the ignorance of a movement come from?
Why do you refuse to acknowledge the good that has been done by the evil "left"? Why do you not acknowledge that the evil "left" DOES in FACT recognize the good done by many American institutions around the world? I think your tiny little arrogant self absorbed head would explode if you allowed reality to squeeze in.
Here is a fact Larry, nobody here gives a shit what you think of "the left". You are "educating" no one. You come here to sling insults, lies, half truths and attacks on your Commander in Chief. You are doing EXACTLY what you hated about "the left" when Bush was president. According to YOUR logic, YOU are now the America Hater.
What kind of Man-O-God does these things? A despicable human being does these things. You are a Troll, a hater, a liar, a spreader of false information and an excuser of corruption and deceit. You are what you claim to hate. The more you post here, the more I feel sorry for your rapidly deteriorating mental state. I think you would honestly rather see the entire USA collapse than see Obamas programs succeed. You would see people die so your theories can be tried out.
You have become what you said you hated about"the left". You are the New Raging Grannie, the New Benjamin Medea, the New Bill Ayers. When you look in the mirror the things you used to claim to despise are now reflected back upon you. Once you claimed that the ways of "the left" would gain nothing, so you made their ways yours when an election, and your neighbors, went against you.
Sad.
Posted by crabwalk at 09/18/2009 @ 08:18am
I supported the Iraq war but did so because I believed it was in the best strategic interest of the US to do so
and I haven't learned a thing.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/18/2009 @ 08:46am
Posted by crabwalk at 09/18/2009 @ 08:18am
And remember, CRAB, after doing that...he turns around and makes hypocritical comments like the one I posted or
"however leftist bigots tend to stereotype Republicans by those kind of images so as to reinforce their own bigotry"----Posted by antisocialist at 05/11/2009 @ 09:41am
and then revels in his own self-righteousness and if called on it says "So? What I say about THEM is right!"
Posted by Mask at 09/18/2009 @ 08:47am
And where could that money be better spent?
Posted by Denise29 at 09/17/2009 @ 6:07pm
flint!
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/18/2009 @ 10:08am
GOP FLEABAG DANA ROHRBACHER: A TALIB CHEERLEADER. AND PROUD OF IT...
From SOURCEWATCH:
Mr. Rohrabacher had a history of involvement in Afghanistan dating back to the Cold War, when he openly supported the groups that would later coalesce into the Taliban regime for their active opposition to the Soviet Union, including fighters under the command of Osama bin Laden.
In late 1988, Rohrabacher went to Afghanistan: "...I chose to hike into Afghanistan as part of a small Mujahedin unit and to engage in a battle against the Russian and communist forces near and around the city of Jalalabad.[1]" In the November/December 1996 issue of Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, Rohrabacher was reported as saying that the Taliban were not terrorists or revolutionaries, that they would develop a disciplined society that would leave no room for terrorists, and that the Taliban posed no threat to the United States.[2]...
During the summer of 2001, Rohrabacher made a trip to Qatar that was paid for by the Islamic Institute & the Government of Qatar, according to Rohrabacher's financial disclosure forms. While in Qatar, Rohrabacher, Grover Norquist, & Khaled Saffuri met with Taliban Foreign Minister Mullah Wakil Ahmed Muttawakil. Wakil reportedly asked for help in increasing the amount of foreign aid sent by the United States to Afghanistan, apparently in exchange for U.S. oil company UNOCAL being allowed to construct of an oil pipeline through Afghanistan. If Rohrabacher was conducting diplomacy, he was in violation of the Logan Act, which prohibits citizens from doing so if not in an official capacity. Rohrabacher told wire service reporters who were present in Doha, Qatar at the time that he had discussed a "peace plan" with the Taliban"...
Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 09/18/2009 @ 11:03am
CRABWALK is not 100% correct -- he is in fact 1,000,000% correct -- when with exasperation he takes the intellectually inferior, sucessionist Reverand over his knee and heartily spanks him with blistering & bruising force. Just because, as a superior secular liberal being, CRABBY can. It is worth quoting from this performace at some length particularly since ANTI has been so bent on making himself seem like something akin to a "moderate". In reality, ANTI is the raving white-knuckle-angry false witness whom you get with a call to central casting for an aging, unrehabilitated rightwing freak:
CRABBY to ANTI: "...What kind of Man-O-God does these things? A despicable human being does these things. You are a Troll, a hater, a liar, a spreader of false information and an excuser of corruption and deceit. You are what you claim to hate. The more you post here, the more I feel sorry for your rapidly deteriorating mental state. I think you would honestly rather see the entire USA collapse than see Obamas programs succeed. You would see people die so your theories can be tried out.
...You are...the New Bill Ayers. When you look in the mirror the things you used to claim to despise are now reflected back upon you.
Sad."
Posted by crabwalk at 09/18/2009 @ 08:18am |
Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 09/18/2009 @ 11:18am
And where could that money be better spent?
Posted by Denise29 at 09/17/2009 @ 6:07pm
flint!
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/18/2009 @ 10:08am
Yesterday I dropped of some work at a local shop. Usually they have a turn around of 1-2 days. They told me it was going to be a week and a half this time as they had a HUGE project underway. The Admin Asst told me that they were in a "feast famine cycle" and that only two weeks ago they were planning on laying off 5-10 people. Now they have this project, which turns out to be a part of the Stimulus Package. They hired one person to help, instead of laying off. Then, one of the their guys bitched and moaned how it was "Obama money"!
So, federal dollars that are keeping him employed are still to be cried about. If he did not get that damn Obama money he would literally be out of a job, collecting govt money via unemployment. Now he is doing work that needs doing, buying supplies from others that need the work...and he is mad...because some illegal alien from Kenya is asking him to work for his money?
Bizarre behavior is becoming the norm for the Birthing Tea Baggers.
Posted by crabwalk at 09/18/2009 @ 11:36am
And who wants to bet anti's response will be about the evil leftist scumbags hating everyone that disagrees with them, all the while never recognizing his own hypocrisy, while railing against...hypocrisy!
And then there's the ever blatantly racist Titan of industry, mr. Happy. Talk about a sad life. My money is on his being an office drone making 40k a year, and absolutely terrified of the fact he's wasted his entire life.
Ahh, these people. Completely insane. Remember, they come here to preserve free speech (which means exactly squat on a private blog), and show the commies what's up.
If it weren't sad, it'd be hilarious.
Posted by TexasFlood at 09/18/2009 @ 11:37am
Posted by TexasFlood at 09/18/2009 @ 11:37am
How about the fact there's a goodly portion of xenophobes among them...certainly a lot of "Buy American" types...
and two of their main news sources are owned by...
"foreigners"?.....Murdoch with Fox and Reverand Moon with the "Washington Times"???
Posted by Mask at 09/18/2009 @ 11:40am
---rightwingnutcase @09/17, 8:37pm
At least NUTCASE is not bearing false witness with this nick (a contrast with his earlier nick that should have been OPPRESSION.&.OCCUPATION.FOR.THE.OPPRESSED).
But as always with the feral rightwingers who scrounge around here for morsels, there are questions to be asked:
1. Furnish (a) your shirt size and (b) dates of departure for Baghdad in order to be equipped with a "Thank *ME* now for this human rights paradise, I'm a Bush dittohead American" t-shirt & banner.
2a. NUTCASE, as is widely known & as declassified govt memos make clear from deliberations among the principles, Donald Rumsfeld was tasked by the Reagan admin with re-assuring Saddam Hitler that Congress's uppity bid to cut off his warhmacht materials would not be obeyed. In plain English, Rumsfeld's job was to stuff his tongue into Saddam's ass-cheek and wiggle it around until the dictator groaned with pleasure delivered from Reagan's office.
2b. In light of such hideous acts that are beyond the pale, please cite the dates (approximate will do) and forms of protest that you made against Reagan's admin for heinously reaching out to Saddam Hitler, the genocidal butcher of Baghdad, at the very height of his reign of terror. Specifically did you...
__ Write the White House in protest
__ Phone the White House
__ Call/Write your Member of Congress
__ Vote for Mondale in 1984 in protest
2b. Cite the moral forms of pious protest that you must UNDOUTABLY have engaged in when George W Loser nominated the same Saddam Hitler lover, Rumsfeld, as Chief of DoD (approximate dates if you do not have the original correspondance).
__ Call/Write/Email/Fax George W Loser in protest
__ Phone W Loser
__ Call/Write/Email/Fax your Member of Congress
Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 09/18/2009 @ 11:40am
antisocialist:
I know it's convenient to only quote what promotes your own agenda.
Below are some of the parts you left out:
http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf
Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;
Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;
Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;
Posted by treetracker at 09/18/2009 @ 11:41am
Living in benighted California I've long witnessed Rohrabacher's act. Densely jingoistic as he is, he is far from a political anomaly. When he's finally finished wreaking havoc as a congress-human, surely he'll find a spot on FOX TV.
Posted by Blackorpheus at 09/18/2009 @ 11:47am
OPPRESSION.&.OCCUPATION.FOR.THE.OPPRESSEDON METROSEXUAL PHONY GEORGE W LOSER'S SORRY RECORD OF PASSIVELY DELIVERED VIETNAM BETRAYAL OF AID/COMFORT TO HANOI:
"He did serve honorably. You are delusional."
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/17/2009 @ 10:45pm
Yes, sure, you do have to read carefully between the lines but what OPPRESSION.&.OCCUPATION.FOR.THE.OPPRESSED really means is evident
"He did serve DAQUIRIS, GIN & TONICS, BLOODY MARYS, AND MANHATTENS TO HIS WOOZY DRINKING BUDDIES honorably. You are MAKING ME MORE delusional THAN USUAL WITH YOUR FACTICITY HENCE I MUST MANUFACTURE FALSITIES MORE RAPIDLY THAN EVEN A RIGHTWING NUTCASE IS CAPABLE OF DOING!"
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/17/2009 @ 10:45pm
Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 09/18/2009 @ 11:50am
I want to read some more from Larry The False Witness on his theories of the Obama Totalitarianism, while he at the same time defends John Ashcrofts works combating terrorism by violating Larry's beloved United States Constitution..to wit:
"The court of appeals, in a decision written by a George W. Bush nominee, rejected all of these arguments. It declared that Ashcroft could be held responsible for injuries inflicted pursuant to his stated policy of using the material witness law to round up suspected terrorists. And it ruled that exploiting the law to lock up suspects for investigative or preventive purposes when probable cause of criminal activity is lacking is clearly unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment. "- David Cole, The Nation.
Posted by crabwalk at 09/18/2009 @ 11:51am
I congratulate congress for passing bills that withhold federal money from ACORN until the latest allegations can be investigated.
I wish our resident cons would do the same for:
Titan Security, found guilty of establishing a prostitution ring, charged with bribery and wasteful spending of US taxpayer money;
Blackwater Security, under several investigations for killing Iraqi civilians while operating with federal funds, under investigation for over billing the US tax payer;
KBR, under multiple investigations for bribery, graft, waste and abuse of federal funds in Iraq, Kuwait and other ME countries;
Boeing inc, found guilty of bribery, corruption and over billing on multiple contracts covering decades.
What say you BARRY25, ANTISOCIALIST, HAPPY, JOMAMMA, SNTAURI, SJCHERMAK?
Will you hold these companies to the same threshold that you want ACORN held to?
Posted by crabwalk at 09/18/2009 @ 11:59am
Will you hold these companies to the same threshold that you want ACORN held to?-----Posted by crabwalk at 09/18/2009 @ 11:59am
Are you kidding????
Just wait until some "liberal James O'Keefe" pulls a similar stunt on some bastion of the right-wing from a corporation to a conservative ministry.
They'll scream "Gotcha journalism!" and "Not indictative of the whole group!"...and contradict everything they're saying now about ACORN.
Posted by Mask at 09/18/2009 @ 1:44pm
What say you BARRY25, ANTISOCIALIST, HAPPY, JOMAMMA, SNTAURI, SJCHERMAK?
Will you hold these companies to the same threshold that you want ACORN held to?
Posted by crabwalk at 09/18/2009 @ 11:59am
I have made no mention of witholding funds from ACORN.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/18/2009 @ 1:47pm
Yea he served alright, in "champagne" unit, what a wuss.
Posted by Denise29 at 09/18/2009 @ 1:55pm
Thats suppose to be "the" champagne unit.
Posted by Denise29 at 09/18/2009 @ 1:56pm
Hey crabwalk, don't forget gunslinger1.
Posted by Denise29 at 09/18/2009 @ 1:58pm
Bizarre behavior is becoming the norm for the Birthing Tea Baggers.
Posted by crabwalk at 09/18/2009 @ 11:36am
They don't like the guvment telling them nuthin, and they don't like guvmnent munny unless it's a tax refund.
They'll of course take the government unemployment check and use any aid that's available when they are in a bad spot...but nobody else should be able to cuz they just ain't good Amarikins. They'll also lie, cheat and pay off guvment officials to get some of that no-bid contract munny.
There all a bunch of whining hypocrits.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/18/2009 @ 10:32pm
There all a bunch of whining hypocrits.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/18/2009 @ 10:32pm
Whoops, I got so caught up in trying to sound like a good ole boy I started typing like one... should be They are all a bunch of whining hypocrits.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/18/2009 @ 10:33pm
Bloodlust: dropping bombs on innocent wedding parties and then strutting as heroes (pilots and bombadiers).
Posted by godistwaddle at 09/19/2009 @ 06:28am
Hey crabwalk, don't forget gunslinger1.
Posted by Denise29 at 09/18/2009 @ 1:58pm
hey, BENCH.......
have i got the girl for you!
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/19/2009 @ 08:09am
It is obvious that an invasion was the most humane possible option.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/17/2009 @ 7:51pm
Delusional.
It was the best option for Exxon/Blackwater/Halliburton/elections cycles and those that can only think of vengeance.
"Humane" does not describe what was done to Falluja. Humane does not encompass the use of Phosphorous as a weapon. Abu Graib was not humane, under Saddam or private contractors and Sgt Homoerotic Poses..
Maybe you are confusing homoerotic with humane?
Posted by crabwalk at 09/19/2009 @ 08:31am
Pakistan police raid US-contracted security firm-Forbes.com
"ISLAMABAD -- Pakistani police raided a local security firm that helps protect the U.S. Embassy on Saturday, seizing dozens of allegedly unlicensed weapons...
"In particular, Pakistani reporters, anti-U.S. bloggers and others have suggested the U.S. is using the American firm formerly known as Blackwater - a claim that chills many Pakistanis because of the company's alleged involvement in killings of Iraqi civilians.
The U.S. Embassy denies it uses Blackwater - now known as Xe Services - in Pakistan."
Why do Pakistanis have such a dim view of Blackwaters "humanitarian efforts"? Is it because of liberal media? Did Blackwater change their name because of liberal media scrutiny?
did ACORN get Inter-Risk the contract?
These are the only reasonable conclusions.
Posted by crabwalk at 09/19/2009 @ 09:04am
"If Saddam's divide-and-rule policies, which in fact were re-enacted by insurgents working with the very Baathist secret police who carried them out during his two decade long reign of terror, were prolonged, the consequences of the collapse of his regime would have been inevitable and the violence following it would have been on a far greater scale than what we saw following the actual collapse of Baathist rule in 2003 when Saddam died unless Saddam's sons were able to succeed him successfully. But even if they ruled Iraq for decades, they would only have brutalized Iraq further to ensure an even bloodier implosion unless there was a Saddam 3 to succeed them successfully.... there was only a choice between an implosion resulting in more deaths than the total number killed throughout the entire war, OR, say, 15 more years of Saddam followed by a few more decades under his sons followed by a few more decades under another Baathist dictator and maybe even possibly another one after that, OR some combination of these two options (i.e., Saddam's sons take over for decades, they die, and then Iraq implodes), OR an invasion. It is obvious that an invasion was the most humane possible option."
"Delusional."
Which option above is more humane?
"15 more years of Saddam followed by a few more decades under his sons followed by a few more decades under another Baathist dictator and maybe even another one after that"?
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/19/2009 @ 6:36pm
""Humane" does not describe what was done to Falluja."
We killed over 1,000 jihadist terrorists, who would have killed thousands if they were left alive, in what would have become a Taliban-like mini-state absent our intervention.
Before March 2003, Abu Ghraib was an abattoir, a torture chamber, and a concentration camp in which tens of thousands were tortured to death.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/19/2009 @ 6:40pm
If you doubt the humanity of our life-saving intervention in Iraq, read this 2002 article: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/817738/posts
"All over Iraq, legions of government informants are ever on alert for suspicious activities or conversations. Bugging is widespread. The regime rewards citizens who report anyone that has uttered even a single word critical of Saddam; children are publicly rewarded for reporting the "impure sentiments" of their own parents. Because no one knows for certain who might betray them to the government, no public or private conversation is truly safe. As veteran BBC correspondent John Sweeney says, "I have been to Baghdad a number of times. Being in Iraq is like creeping around inside someone else's migraine. The fear is so omnipresent you could almost eat it. No one talks." Two years ago it was decreed that criticizing Saddam in any way – even saying that his clothes did not match – would be punished by cutting out the offender's tongue. But such offenders actually consider themselves fortunate if they can somehow avoid being sentenced to a prison term of endless torture.
Once prisoners are incarcerated for disloyalty to the regime, their suffering is so great it can scarcely be described. Many are placed in solitary confinement on starvation diets. Confessions are forced from them by the most gruesome methods imaginable: They are struck with brass knuckles and wooden bludgeons; they receive electric shocks to their genitalia; scorching metal rods are forced into their body orifices; their toes are crushed and their toenails pulled out; they have their limbs literally burned off; they are slowly lowered into large vats of acid until they confess or die...."
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/19/2009 @ 6:44pm
"...Many are poisoned with thallium, which causes its victims enormous agony before they die. When these prisons periodically get overcrowded, they are "cleaned out" by means of summary executions.
Frequently, confessions are extracted by torturing not only the prisoner, but his family members as well. His wife and daughters are raped, and sometimes beheaded, as he watches. His children or grandchildren – in many cases mere toddlers – are burned with cigarette butts; their eyes are gouged out; all the bones in their feet are crushed; their ears and limbs are amputated, one at a time. If no confession is forthcoming, the youngsters are slaughtered. Moreover, some of these prisons actually house the children of suspected dissidents – children younger than twelve who are packed into cells and left to rot amid pools of their own excrement, blood, and tears.
In addition to the aforementioned prisoners, hundreds of thousands of others have been taken into temporary custody, where they were tortured and then released – rendered physically and emotionally mangled for the rest of their lives. Indeed torture is not a last resort in Saddam's regime, but is often a first resort – to drive home the message that no dissent will be tolerated. Max Van der Stoel, former UN special reporter for human rights in Iraq, states plainly that the brutality of Saddam's regime is "of an exceptionally grave character – so grave that it has few parallels in the years that have passed since the Second World War."
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/19/2009 @ 6:46pm
http://assyrianchristians.com/i_was_wrong_mar_26_03.htm
Here's an account by a "human shield" of why he was wrong about Iraq:
"I had not realized it but began to realize that all foreigners in Iraq are subject to 24 hour surveillance by government `minders` who arrange all interviews, visits and contact with ordinary Iraqis. Through some fluke either by my invitation as a religious person and or my family connection I was not subject to any government `minders` at any time throughout my stay in Iraq.....
"What in the world do you mean?" I asked. "How could you not want peace?" "We don't want peace. We want the war to come" he continued. .. telling them of progress in the talks at the United Nations on working some sort of compromise with Iraq I was welcomed not with joy but anger. "No, there is no other way! We want the war! It is the only way he will get out of our lives!" Here I had been demonstrating against the war thinking I had been doing it for the very people I was here now with and yet I had not ever bothered to ask them what they wanted."
There are many examples of Iraqi gratitude towards America. Another human shield said Iraqis "told me they would commit suicide if American bombing didn't start".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/mar/22/iraq.jamesmeek The link above quotes some of the first liberated Iraqis. "You just arrived. You're late. What took you so long? God help you become victorious. I want to say hello to Bush, to shake his hand. We came out of the grave."
If you notice, countries like France and Germany do not get along well with the elected Iraqi government. Wonder why?
http://markhumphrys.com/iraq.war.html An Iraqi celebrates 'return to the world' after 21 years hiding from Saddam - "If I met Mr Bush, I...
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/19/2009 @ 7:14pm
"...would say 'thank you, thank you, you are a good human, you returned me from the dead."
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0715/p07s01-woiq.html
The above Christian Science Monitor article describes an Iraqi family naming their baby boy after Bush. It also says: "Back at the Baghdad church, Abdul Masih said, "Give my peace to Mr. Bush.
"I love him," he added. "He saved us from the criminal."
And in Sulaymaniyah a little girl trailed after the Americans as they left a restaurant, shyly smiling and repeating over and over, "Thank you. Thank you."
Ahmed Chalabi thinks that someday France and Germany ".. will see their way clear to apologizing to the Iraqi people".
Iraqi poet Awad Nasir has repeatedly praised the Americans as heroes.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/19/2009 @ 7:22pm
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/19/2009 @ 7:22pm
Nobody's buying neo-con'ism anymore.
Even the base of the GOP has lost interest in "spreading democracy"...kill Muslims?..sure. But the closeted Islamophobia is out now and few of them still want to create a "Middle Eastern European Union".
Eventually, even "The Weekly Standard" will abandon it...or talk about how "Things WERE progressing on that front just fine until Obama got elected...now it's so bad, likely no chance of it ever occurring"....when it never was anyway.
Posted by Mask at 09/21/2009 @ 07:33am
The people of Iraq are happy that we are there./ They have a "police force" that isn't concerned with taking bribes or shooting people from a different sect. We are developing a large group of future lecturers on Iraq for our universities.Can you imagine the war will start a new group of lefty commentators on their way.
Posted by whatozz at 09/21/2009 @ 08:06am
um...but we didn't invade for wmd, either. thank paul wolfowitz for frankly stating that the pretext of wmd was decided upon for "bureaucratic reasons." here's wolf:
"For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on." (Vanity Fair, July, 03)
a few years ago, based upon an intensive survey of the iraqi population, using multiple methodoligies, the prestigious british medical journal the lancet estimated the number of iraqi civilians dead as a result of the invasion at 700,000. it's quite possible that the number now stands at over 1 million.
1 million people dead. bureacratic reasons. thank us for our violence.
what if the rest of the world applied the same standards to us that we applied to saddam hussein? but wait, that's not a good example. our wmd are real.
Posted by jasonrhodes at 09/22/2009 @ 5:41pm
Bush knew he was forcing the U.S. to invade Iraq on the day that he was installed. Saddam Hussein tried to kill his father, what would you do? And don't even try to say that Saddams execution ahd anything to do with any kind of due process, it was purely a revenge killing.
Posted by Milhaus at 09/22/2009 @ 7:04pm
Saddam claimed in interviews in prison that if the US had offered him a security shield from an Iranian invasion he would have openly confessed to the fact that he had no wmd, and would have renounced any interest in them. By actually doing good to our alleged enemy Saddam/Iraq the US could have had a peaceful ally in the region - but actually following the precepts of Christ never seems to occur to those political enthusiasts who most loudly proclaim His name.
Posted by nonukes at 09/22/2009 @ 7:05pm