The Big Lie

"We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th attacks."

George W. Bush -- September 17, 2003

To the extend that George Bush had retained the slightest shred of dignity through the whole ugly Iraq imbroglio, it was found in his refusal to fully embrace the biggest of the Big Lies told by his aides: The claim that the Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein had played a role in the September 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

The president was never honorable in this regard. He did not go out of his way correct the confusion among the American people, a majority of whom believed around the time of the March, 2003, invasion of Iraq that Hussein's regime was somehow linked with Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network. Nor did he step up to challenge the misinformation being spread by members of his administration, including Vice President Dick Cheney, about a supposed connection between Iraq and al-Qaida. And, early on, he actually tried to defend Cheney's statements.

But, even before the the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States established that there was no collaboration between Iraq and al-Qaida, Bush was a good deal more cautious than Cheney. And when the president was directly confronted this spring by reporters and asked whether he shared the vice president's view that a connection had been established, Bush detached himself fully from his vice president's mad ranting and made it clear that he knew of no evidence to support the charge.

In other words, Bush made at least some effort to avoid echoing Cheney's Big Lies.

Until now.

On Tuesday night, however, the president abandoned the narrow patch of high ground that he had staked out and dove into the raging flood of deceit that his administration had unleashed.

In what was billed as a major address regarding Iraq, Bush mentioned the September 11 attacks no less than five times.

Before 750 members of the 82nd Airborne Division and the Army's Special Operations unit, who had been assembled at Fort Bragg, N.C., to give Bush a respectful and unquestioning audience, the president declared, "The troops here and across the world are fighting a global war on terror. This war reached our shores on September 11, 2001. The terrorists who attacked us -- and the terrorists we face -- murder in the name of a totalitarian ideology that hates freedom, rejects tolerance and despises all dissent. Their aim is to remake the Middle East in their own grim image of tyranny and oppression, by toppling governments, driving us out of the region and exporting terror."

Bush went on to claim that, "After September 11, I made a commitment to the American people: The nation will not wait to be attacked again. We will defend our freedom. We will take the fight to the enemy. Iraq is the latest battlefield in this war."

By suggesting that the invasion and occupation of Iraq should be seen as part of a legitimate and necessary response to September 11, as he clearly did on Tuesday, Bush made a deliberate break with reality -- not so complete a break, perhaps, as that of Cheney and the wingnut faction of the administration, but a break all the same.

The president speech was written and delivered with the intent of deceiving the American people into believing things that were never true.

Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator, to be sure, but he ruled as a militant secularist, who gave Christians and members of other religious and ethnic minorities positions of power and authority within the governments he assembled. Hussein saw the rise of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida as a threat, and he meticulously -- sometimes violently -- kept that threat out of Iraq. To the extent that elements of al-Qaida are now on the ground in that country, it is not as a result of Hussein's invitation but as a result of his removal.

The point here is not to defend Hussein. The point is to recognize reality: The invasion and occupation of Iraq did not control the spread of terrorist activity in the Middle East. It handed the terrorists new opportunities for recruitment, and it gave them new territory in which to operate. Until the president acknowledges these fundamental realities -- and his own responsibility for making things worse -- it will be impossible to undo the damage.

George Bush set out to deceive to the American people Tuesday. That was morally wrong, and tactically foolish.

But George Bush also deceived himself, by engaging in the fantasy that some new spin will allow him to avoid taking responsibility for making the world a more dangerous place. Ultimately, that is the bigger, and far more dangerous lie.

Comments (54)

1. Bravo! This is the best review of many I've read since last night's speech. Nothing more needs to be said.

   Posted by BigBird at 06/29/2005 @ 3:02pm

2. Definitely. The only thing I can think of off the top of my head is to go from the conservative point is that all that is irrelevant, and sinec we're there we must now "stay the course". How'd that so quickly become a catch phrase anyway? Yeah the terrorists are there now as a result of this, but still. I supported the elimination of Sadaam's regime, but it's our fault the terrorists are there. We could have EASILY secured the the damn borders to drastically lower the terrorists coming through, so that we were dealing almost entirely of insurgents.

   Of course, we have plenty of troops there so why didn't we do it? And if we didn't have enough troops, why did we still invade so messily?

   My two cents real quick...Back to work for now.

   Posted by Trogdor at 06/29/2005 @ 3:42pm

3. This bunch of thugs, miscreants, and other right wing neo-CONS are the "Gang that can't shoot straight". The speech last evening was poorly written and poorly delivered, just like the rest of this damnable war. They've "pooched" the whole thing since the day in 1999 or so when it was conceived.

   Back in 1969 I was facing the draft; I was a war protester" There were several Fraternity guys sitting around the living room one Sunday in March. All four of 'em were talkin' large about the need to stop communism before it reached the US.

   Just like Bush, each one of 'em got one of those precious Nat'l Guard slots that only money and influence could buy. Just like Bush and his "service"... at that time the Girl Scouts would see action before these "heroes". Not much has changed. Money is still the lifeblood of war, especially in the so-called "all volunteer" military.

   It was sickening to see Bush try to be one of the troops last evening... again. Someone else went in his place, but that was okay, Bush could be photgraphed in uniform to give him just enough credibility to appear like his walk matched his talk. People who actually faced the 'Nam know the difference.

   In AA, people learn that doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome is a mark of insanity. Well, "staying the course" is doing the same thing over and over again... just proves they're crazy.

   We need to get on with the Inquiry, Impeachment and Trial. Then we have to clean up this mess in Iraq. Eventually these characters will be cast into oblivion, at best a footnote in History.

   Posted by EconGuy at 06/29/2005 @ 4:14pm

4. I was struck by how these words when taken out of context sound like they are describing the Republican party and the Bush administration: "a totalitarian ideology that hates freedom, rejects tolerance and despises all dissent." Zero questions where the Senate and House leaders are and I question where the mainstream press is. Everyone, politicians and the press alike, has been cowed into silence.

   Posted by dairyqueen at 06/29/2005 @ 4:18pm

5. When is someone going to also confirm that Al-Zarqwhai was operating the Ansar-el-Islam in the north to the disatisfaction of Hussein for years. They were enemies if you read the book Out of the ashes by Andrew cockburn, Pre written to march 20 2003. Of course we wouldn't expect the president or any of his nit wit advisors to ever read anything, but what they want to read to believe their lies.

   Posted by pdrew at 06/29/2005 @ 4:22pm

6. It's interesting and I think rather telling on many levels that Bush's speech last night to the nation was telecast from Fort Bragg. For one it gives Bush a chance yet again to strut in front of the cameras with military men and women in the background, if it wasn't so pathetic and tragic it would be funny. Second, the imagery and symbolism reminded me of past foreign military dictators when they address their people after a military coup. Were the Leader surrounded by military men, ( Special Forces no less in this case) and in front of a cowed media and people, tries to justify his actions to the nation. What angers me is not just the lies that Bush utters from his lying and delusional mouth. I expect him to lie, to shamefully use 9/11 and to say to the people, that up is down and down is up. What angers me the most and makes me and others feel that we are now in the throes of fascism, are those whores and cowards in the so-called mainstream media, who refuse to ask the questions that should be asked, who refuse to tell the people the truth. Instead they bend over backwards to appease the right-wing and repeat Bush's lies and that of his handlers. Yes indeed up is now down and down is up, Long Live El Presidente!

   WAKE UP AMERICA!

   IMPEACH BUSH NOW!

   Posted by RSPAIN at 06/29/2005 @ 6:21pm

7. I wonder where are RONS and the merry band of rightwingers who usually defend Bush to the death of sanity and the life of insanity? Is there any point now in watching a Bush speech on Iraq, the economy, the environment, etc.? You pretty much know what is going to be said:

   1. Iraq: Stay the course 2. Economy: Tax cuts spur economic growth and I am simply giving back your own money 3. Environment: We can't sacrifice economic growth for the envirnoment.

   You will hear nothing else but sloganeering. So why watch?

   Posted by POSEIDON at 06/29/2005 @ 7:54pm

8. Last night's speech was the same ole, same ole Bush blathering on and on about a fantasy that is only attainable in the mind of an idiot. It was more of the same talk with no meaning that's been stumbling out of his mouth since he took office. It is good that many more people seem to be catching on that the groupthink exists not only in both political parties, but also with the media. While there might be many true journalists who want to pursue the objectivity of the issues, they cannot find the network sponsorship to print or broadcast any findings that go against the "patriotic" Rove spin.

   The people who control the resources needed to wage war don't want the public to be informed, they want them to be conditioned. The profits from war are made in weapons, oil, and technology. As long as the war goes on, the money is made. It doesn't matter who wins or loses, all that is necessary is that the game be played. That is why we must "stay the course" until the game is won in Iraq, even though no one has defined how it can be done, what it will look like, or when it will happen. As long as the media can keep the people "dumbed down" and the emotions charged up, the American taxpayers are in for a long and expensive ride.

   The people in this country must come to realize that the only way a foreign influence will prevail in Iraq is if that influence is willing to commit genocide. We, as an unwelcome invader, are in for a millennium long conflict that is not so foreign to that part of the world. All the while, the controllers of power and resources of war will become stronger, our loved ones will perish, and the common citizen will become poorer. If our representatives in governemnt feel that we can't leave Iraq until order is restored, then we as their constituents should feel that they have a plan that they believe in. By the way, how many congressmen have children fighting in Iraq? Go ahead, take a wild guess…

   Regards,

   Alias

   Posted by Alias at 06/29/2005 @ 7:58pm

9. It's truly baffling to me that Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes or that lost girl in Aruba are getting more coverage and analysis than one of the greatest lies ever perpetrated on the American public. I may be beating a dead horse here, but when is the main stream media going to wake up and start asking the tough questions? As a member of the media (all be it a neophyte, working part time while still in college), I'm absolutely appaled at the direction the profession I wish to pursue is going. What good is the media if all it is celebrity gossiping and lame duck reporting?

   Posted by TheInsider at 06/29/2005 @ 8:23pm

10. Like you, Dairyqueen, I was struck by those words, but more expnasively:

    "The terrorists who attacked us -- and the terrorists we face -- murder in the name of a totalitarian ideology that hates freedom, rejects tolerance and despises all dissent. Their aim is to remake the Middle East in their own grim image of tyranny and oppression, by toppling governments, driving us out of the region and exporting terror."

    It would be ridiculously easy to substitute a few words, e.g., "capitalist ideology," "espouses freedom," and so on, to make these words apply to us. They practically do without modification. We are murdering and toppling governments in an effort to remake the Middle East in our own image, or at least sufficiently so to provide lots of profit to the chosen firms.

    Hypocrisy abounds.

    Posted by mldiana at 06/29/2005 @ 8:29pm

11. TheInsider, unfortunately it's not baffling to me at all. We get stories about Tom Cruise and missing rich white girls from red states because the media are owned by corporations which in turn are owned by other corporations, who like things just the way they are. If your parent corporation also happens to be a war profiteer, then all the better.

    Posted by bobbijo at 06/29/2005 @ 10:59pm

12. Reality T.V. sells in America. If it sells, it will continue to be sold. Why should the status quo be overthrown? If people do not have the presence of mind to reject this lunacy, then why should the powers that be change gears? If people in Tennessee and South Carolina, supposed red states, are beginning to reject this war, then why are they not making their voices heard?

    Posted by POSEIDON at 06/30/2005 @ 02:56am

13. I would like to recommend a newly published photography book called "Shots" by David Fenton, full of excellent b/w photos of anti-war protesters and others in the '60s. Fenton started taking photos for the Liberation News Service at the age of 17 and managed to be in the center of the action when a whole bunch of history was being made. Such terrific images of leaders and mischief-makers like Abbie Hoffman, William Ayers, William Kuntsler, Bernadette Doern, Tom Hayden, Huey Newton, and so many others ... I'm not saying I agree with all the tactics used by protesters back then, but one can't help but be impressed by all the commitment, energy, passion, and political awareness shown by so many in that generation. Those young people really believed they could change the world. Looking through this book earlier today, I was struck by the contrast between the (admittedly naive, but still well-intended) idealism of 35 years ago, and the rampant cynicism and apathy I see today.

    Where is today's version of the Liberation News Service? Could something like the underground press even exist nowadays? Where are the younger Hoffmans, Paul Soglins, Jesse Jacksons, Angela Davises? Is it really going to take a draft to get the college campuses up in arms against this administration?

    I also recommend the latest Harper's which has a great piece about the "other" costs of this war, the 8 wounded soldiers for every one of the 1700+ who have died. Thousands of young people, here AND in Iraq, who have been maimed, burned, and brain damaged because of our nation's arrogance and incompetence. It's so overwhelming to even contemplate. So sad.

    Posted by msbosh at 06/30/2005 @ 04:44am

14. "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th attacks."

    And the irony is, many of Americans (like me) don't care. We are happy to see him out of power. We have counted the cost and are willing to pay the price. And yes, I do have inlaws and relatives serving in Iraq and Afghanistan right now. All of them are happy to be there and proud to be defending America against terrorists. They all are aware of the risks and send us reports every week of the water wells being built and the schools being reconstructed. My brother in law saw a little girls face light up as she was able to attend school for the first time at the age of 13 years old.

    Todd

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 06/30/2005 @ 1:25pm

15. Todd,

    When judging whether the outcome of this war was beneficial to Iraq, it is important to consider both the benefits and the costs to the Iraqi people. As to benefits, the people in Iraq are at least nominally more free in their daily lives than they were under Sadaam's dictatorship. Women in Iraq are clearly better off in terms of the actions they are now allowed to take. Sunni muslims have a more fair opportunity to achieve their fair share of power. Fewer people will have to face the fear of torture from the Iraqi government. Sadaam will face justice for his heinous crimes against the people of Iraq. We have more control over foreign oil reserves, which means decreased threat of boycotts. Some advocates for democracy in surrounding countries have been emboldened into asserting themselves into their own national agendas, thus increasing the power of democratic ideals. These are all positives.

    But as to the costs, the freedom comes at a steep price. Iraqis are not free to move on the streets without fear of murder and violence. Waves of insurgents are finding their way into the country, which Sadaam did an excellent job of controlling when he was in power. We cannot control the borders, and we do a poor job of keeping insurgents out of raided areas after our troops leave. These insurgents are murdering Iraqi civilians, destroying Iraqi businesses and government infrastructure. Violence has ended the lives of up to 100,000 Iraqis and around 1500 US troops. And these conditions are likely to continue for twelve years, by our Defense Secretary's estimation. We have spent over 100,000,000,000$ in Iraq, and that was in the face of a budget deficit which climbs higher every day, forcing us to limit services to the citizens of our country including school services and higher education loans, housing services for the poor, health care services for the poor, and many other vital areas of our domestic interest. We have isolated ourselves from the international community, which means other countries are less likely to accept our help. Our efforts to spread democracy through monetary and ideological support throughout the globe have hit a huge snag, and countries that accept our aid face the threat of being labeled as patsies to the administration.

    These are by necessity limited lists of costs and benefits. I just want to make sure you truly counted the costs before concluding the war was "worth it"...

    Posted by nattiebumpo at 06/30/2005 @ 2:44pm

16. "These are by necessity limited lists of costs and benefits. I just want to make sure you truly counted the costs before concluding the war was "worth it"..."

    Thank you Nattiebumpo, for once a voice from the other side at least has read what I wrote and not simply labeled me a norrow minded bigot who is just not intelligent enough to fully understand, as most of the readers of the Nation do.

    I do understand and agree with every single thing you pointed out in the "costs" section of your response, and could actually add a few more.

    In my opinion, the war is worth these costs. But again, it's just my opinion, and I'm too much of a "Bush stooge" to know any better anyway right?

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 06/30/2005 @ 2:59pm

17. I want you folks on the left to continue living in your little dream world that President Bush will be Impeached..It is not going to happen and despite your moans, groans, and whining, there is a large percentage of us out there who are happy with this President (other than maybe trying to be too nice with our efforts in Iraq rather than use WWII tactics and carpet bomb terrorist locations, which lack of use has cost more american lives than it should have)...and except for the usual small percentage of whining current and ex-military, overwhelmingly the troops support this President Posted by love liberty at 06/30/2005 @ 3:11pm

18. further evidence of the support by military families for the President

    http://www.washtimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20050630-124908-7077r [url]

    Posted by love liberty at 06/30/2005 @ 3:13pm

19. Todd,

    I don't think you're a stooge, you are just trying to evaluate the costs and benefits of the war. I just have a question: if things continue exactly as they are for the next twelve years, will the war still have been worth it? If casualties double to 200,000? How many lives should we sacrifice? When is it too much? Is it ever too much?

    If the administration had been honest about the potential cost in lives, money, and effort, and the potential benefits, I seriously doubt the war would have happened. If the administration had truly contemplated all potential scenarios, and knew that this one had a good chance of being true, did they have an obligation to tell the rest of us about it? Or is it better that we blindly trust our leaders?

    Posted by nattiebumpo at 06/30/2005 @ 3:15pm

20. Of course, when only you know what "reality" is, everyone else must be a liar. You know, to be fair, you knew even before Bush said a word, you were going to label him a liar in your reaction. I doubt there is anything the President ever could do or say where you wouldn't find fault with him. The reality is, your "reality" is always skewed in the direction of an intense need to hate the man. You know, liberals -- I'm sorry, progressives -- always imagine themselves so broadminded and inclusive, so warm and fuzzy, yet when it comes to a reasonable difference of opinion: is the war in Iraq a part of the war on terror or is it not (good god, and no one, no one, no one, ever said Hussein had anything to do with 9/11 - stop, stop, stop that big lie, the only people who say it are you guys), you characters go livid. What, you don't agree with me? Well, you must be a LIAR and a CHEAT and a HOMOPHOBE! (Oh wait, that last was just a reflex.) It would be bad enough if it was only the war that caused such apoplexy, but it seems as if ever issue under heaven and earth causes the same reaction: abortion, stem cells, global warming, etc, etc. You guys can't stand it when anyone has a different opinion. Come on, grow up, can't you learn to criticize and disagree without feeling compelled to call everyone else names and accuse them, always deliberately, of being out and out liars? Is your "reality" the only one?

    Posted by jeck at 06/30/2005 @ 3:34pm

21. "Or is it better that we blindly trust our leaders? "

    Never blindly trust Earthly leaders. Always question. However also know that there will be times when others disagree with your answers to your questions, and the other side wins. I certainly didn't like the way that Clinton was elected or the way that the covered up the Lewinsky fiasco by lame attempts to destroy aspirin factories, instead of really kicking ass. But hey, I voted and my side lost. There are always going to be winners and losers in life, war, politics and sports.

    This is part of the problem with progressives in America preaching that kids should play non-competitive sports thinking this somehow helps them in later life.

    What a bunch of B.S. If people do not understand competition they will be very unhappy in life. Life is all about competition, I know you would prefer that we all just "get along," and I always think that everything other than war needs to be tried first.

    And we tried everything other than war through the American troop barracks bombing, through the U.S.S. Cole bombing, through the 1st world trade center bombing, through 9-11.

    We have tried all of the other approaches; the terrorists are not willing to "get along". Therefore they must be killed or imprisoned.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 06/30/2005 @ 3:45pm

22. Jeck,

    Nice try; but your attempt here to create a smokescreen to distract from the indisputable fact that John Nichols points out here is facile and intellectually sophomoric.

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 06/30/2005 @ 4:22pm

23. It's not liberals' fault that Bush relentlessly refuses to be straightforward in his assessment of any problem. If he was honest I would respect his opinion so much more. Then again, who ever heard of an honest politician.

    And I haven't heard a coherent argument from any conservative as to why Iraq truly is part of the war on terror. Come on, I challenge you to give me a complete, factual answer as to how our choice to go to Iraq ends Al-Qaida's influence. The only interesting and potentially insightful answer I have heard about how Iraq fits into the war on terror is that we're distracting terrorists from focusing on America by forcing them to focus on Iraq. This may be true, but does that make the Iraq war a just war?

    Todd: I love competition, but you've gotta give me something to work with! Calling your point of view "just your opinion" is like saying you don't want to argue about whether that opinion is right or wrong. Fight for yourself!

    Jeck: if you are worried about liberals calling conservatives names, then you should be chastising the pundits at Fox News, Karl Rove, and many other people in the administration who call liberals wussies, politically correct, unpatriotic, etc.

    Posted by nattiebumpo at 06/30/2005 @ 4:30pm

24. Nattie,

    "Todd: I love competition, but you've gotta give me something to work with! Calling your point of view "just your opinion" is like saying you don't want to argue about whether that opinion is right or wrong. Fight for yourself!"

    Oh, as Cyclops and the other elite progressives have already proven, your intelligence is so much higher than ours as mere conservative Christian Bush supporters.

    It is apparent that we lack the intellectual resources to sufficiently create an argument supported by the facts involved in the case.

    However this doesn't change the fact that our opinion does count, and support for the war on terror including Iraq although less as of late, still exists among conservative.

    My thoughts are that there exists a plethora of people like myself that just like the fact that we are killing terrorists.

    Ooops, I'm sorry, was that "unethical"?

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 06/30/2005 @ 4:39pm

25. Todd,

    I wasn't trying to belittle you, just stir it up a little. Can't you take a few mild-mannered jabs from a wimpy liberal? I am not saying you are stupid, I just want to hear you back it up a little.

    So the argument basically goes: I don't care how many innocent women and children are killed as long as those terrorists who we brought into Iraq die along with them.

    I understand why you voted for Bush. You both agree that the ends justify the means no matter what.

    Posted by nattiebumpo at 06/30/2005 @ 5:10pm

26. "So the argument basically goes: I don't care how many innocent women and children are killed as long as those terrorists who we brought into Iraq die along with them.

    I understand why you voted for Bush. You both agree that the ends justify the means no matter what. "

    In this case; absolutely.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 06/30/2005 @ 5:15pm

27. Todd:

    Aren't you man enough to defend the policies? All you can come up with is killing terrorists is good and "that is my opinion". If you have the time to read this thing, you must know in greater detail why you believe in the war.

    Posted by nattiebumpo at 06/30/2005 @ 5:22pm

28. "My thoughts are that there exists a plethora of people like myself that just like the fact that we are killing terrorists."

    This strategy worked so well in Israel...

    Posted by nattiebumpo at 06/30/2005 @ 5:25pm

29. The usual tactics of distraction by the usual suspects aside, Mr. Nichols has simply pointed out that President Bush tried to work his one-trick-pony act -- i.e., milk 9/11 for all you can get -- and it fell flat. "You can't sell out of an empty wagon," as they say in Texiz Bidness circles, and Deputy Dubya has already sold this same, stale turkey till it won't gobble any more. (Sorry for mixing up all those idioms and metaphors.) Yes, the true believers tuned in, but an increasing majority of Americans tuned out. This trend will continue, since reality and the Bush administration have long since parted company and even the somnolent American public has begun to insist that the bullshit cease.

    Seeing pictures of President Bush surrounded by nothing but long faces, military uniforms, and French Berets reminded me so much of Saddam Hussein in his bunker: increasingly out of touch with the outside world closing in around him, with few except his loyal officers and a cameraman to keep him company. This guy has screwed the pooch royally, and now hasn't the first idea what to do. If he ever had to give a speech to a real audience he didn't own, what little image he has left would instantly evaporate.

    Many of the "news" networks didn't want to carry the speech because the Bush White House suckered them the last time with promises of something new that didn't materialize. The Republicans heaped their usual abuse on the networks again, though, so network management caved in, got suckered again, and got the same old bullshit again. How many times can even these morons sell out their audiences? Probably a few more times, I'd guess, but advertisers don't want to waste their ad dollars selling to only a dwindling audience of Republicans. Bush's next 9/11 speech (blaming it for Global Warming and the Trade and Budget Deficits) will probably go out only to Fox Cable subscribers. They'll swallow anything Republican.

    I saw on the Internet today that a soldier in Oklahoma threatened to commit suicide by jumping off a bridge. It seems he had orders to deploy to Iraq and also faced a restraining order preventing him from seeing his six-year-old boy. The increasing and repeated deployments to a monstrous misadventure sell well to the rubes at home who love the thought of killing (in the abstract), but the "happy GI killer who just can't wait to do it all again" crap won't wash and wear. The costs in family breakups, increasing psychosis, and just the normal death and maiming have begun to destroy the Army. Some people don't care. Republicans apparently don't -- except for the few who'll occasionally break ranks and talk honestly about the truth. At any rate, events on the ground in Iraq will decide things, since the Iraqi people don't care about Bush's 9/11 scam (they had nothing to do with it) and like the Vietnamese would rather that the United States go fight its Mystical Dread Du Jour ("Monolithic World Communism" or "Terrorism") somewhere else.

    Posted by mrmurry at 06/30/2005 @ 8:32pm

30. The Big Lie Lies on Nichols' Lips

    By suggesting that the invasion and occupation of Iraq should be seen as part of a legitimate and necessary response to September 11, as he clearly did on Tuesday, Bush made a deliberate break with reality . . .

    Reality? This is the reality:

    The attacks on NY and Washington DC did not begin on Sept 11 any more than the attack on Pearl Harbor began on Dec 7. Such events have a context. Sept 11 reached back decades.

    America, as she developed a unique power position in the world, became the bete noire of ever more groupings. They saw her as the main obstruction to their ambitions. The US was the force behind arms control programs stymieing despots dreaming of A bombs. She was the champion of a Western wave threatening traditional Islamic society. She pushed to open closed societies, was the sole supporter of Israel, insisted on human rights, and lambasted rogue states.

    All that aroused an ever larger constellation of the aggrieved. Early expressions of that resentment were Lee Harvey Oswald and Sirhan Sirhan. They dared shoot down an American president and presidential candidate. Others dared attack GIs in Germany, hijack passenger airliners, take American diplomats hostage in Tehran and kill in Beirut. The bombings of the Khobar Towers, of our African embassies, of Pan Am 103 and the USS Cole, even the 1973 oil embargo were facets of this. In Somalia there was the murder of Americans seeking to feed a starving nation. There was Saddam demonstrating across 12 years that it was possible to make a monkey of the US and of her WMD concerns. That and much more were the manifestations of a gathering anti-US storm. Individually they were small and independent waves but they added up to ever more foaming anger. There was a growing conviction that the US could be defied, outflanked, and attacked. That contempt and confidence built into the tsunami that smashed into New York City on 9/11.

    It was critical for the United States to respond. She had to establish that she was not to be trifled with, that US circumspection has its limits, that America is a real tiger which it is a great mistke to arouse.

    However, targeting the proximate cause of 9/11, the Taliban's Afghanistan, was not enough. It was necessary to reach for and make an example of the strongest most prominent and most representative creature in that pack of baying jackals. That was Iraq's Saddam. Here was a tyrant who pulled out the tongues of his critics, had put 300,000 of his citizens into mass graves and had become the Saladin of the Arab world, and more than the Arab world. He had made himself the model for all those desiring not just to stick a finger in Uncle Sam's eyes but to cut open his belly. Iraq's oil wealth and pool of human talent made that country the most capable of challenging America with WMD. Saddam had been within a year of an A bomb in 1980 and again in 1990. Hans Blix admitted in 1995, "he had us fooled." After 9/11, the most contumacious neck in that pack of jackals, had to be wrung, and it belonged to Iraq's Baath leader. Saddam was the correct choice.

    It is grotesque that people who took that fascist's side against US, and who even now side with the no less fascist, insurgents, manage righteous indignation and bandy words like, The Big Lie.

    Posted by nacl at 06/30/2005 @ 9:19pm

31. Ahhh, the phony "War on Terra"...Does anyone really believe that there will be a day where there are no terrorists? The rich send the poor and the working class to foreign countries to kill and be killed while they stay home with their empty rhetoric and full bank accounts...

    Posted by pizzmoe at 06/30/2005 @ 10:01pm

32. PIZZMOE

    Ahhh, the phony "War on Terra"...Does anyone really believe that there will be a day where there are no terrorists? The rich send the poor and the working class to foreign countries to kill and be killed while they stay home with their empty rhetoric and full bank accounts...

    Speaking of empty rhetoric. The "Phony War" was that period after Hitler conquered Poland and before he invaded France. In all that time the Soviet Union kept delivering iron ore, chromium and oil to the Third Reich. Indeed that continued even after the fall of France when Britain stood alone and fought for survival. The America Left (the Pizzmoes of that time) justified that with rhetoric about British imperialists, war mongers, plutocrats who exploited the workers and were really worse than the Nazis.

    To be sure, that judgment changed once the Soviet Union herself was invaded. Then there could be no compromising with fascism.

    It is strange how the Left now again supports fascists against the capitalist imperialists. It stood by Saddam, who ran a ferocious police state. And it sympathizes with the insurgents who make no bones about their intollerance, their hatred of democracy, their readyness to chop off the heads of journalists and to turn Iraq again into a despotism.

    Posted by nacl at 06/30/2005 @ 11:17pm

33. Getting late,here is some USA history that never was taught in History 101.Just imgine between a few Arabs got revenge and killed 3000 USA folks--the government brought out all guns and rounded everyone up-that appeared--Arab.Now,if a group blackmails, bribes government officials in power and millions die and lasts for over 90 years-why is there no round-ups--killings of the dirty deeders? I never knew this and just learnt it last 2 weeks--whom and when and how america became the mass killer of the world--lies buyouts bribes,killings-that is America's sinister face under that ugly face. Read this and weep--Bush jr, faviorite mentor is Woodward Wilson Pres of USA.I would say both are monesters.In 1915 Wilson was tailed by a zionist group to find information to blackmail him.Having found that Wilson was having a sexual affair with one of senator's wife,they confronted him and Coward agreed to enter the war in 1916 in europe and againist Germany.All this was the preparation for the promise of a homeland for the jews.The American Jewish Industrialist gathered $325 million for Wilson to bribe the Russian Czar in 1915-not to sign the peace treaty between Russia and Germany.Both warring parties had enough of war but the money to the Czar was to much not to accept.In secret arms, food was channeled to Russia,at the same time-USA was patting Germany on the back--my pal.In 1916, Wilson promised that if elected---USA would never inter the war,after being re-elected and the jews blackmailing looming--he in 3 months declared war and the Coward lied to congress. Folks---Only WWI became world War when America took part.Millions dead in all fronts--hundreds of thousands USA troops died and Countless civilians.But why?just for that little country called Israel! Do you know that WWII was because of Wilson's Belford agreement ,that forced ill effects on the Germans.What happened to the Czar and the USA $millions--Stalin,Lenin--massive killings.The invasion of Iraq is the continuation of the sinister plotting of the jews.Don't kid yourselves--one aspect that is frightening--Jews help Only Jews. Knowing that millions have died and untold destruction--we still pander to them--WHY?They hate Arabs but hate to be called arabs .If they are not Arabs what the hell are they doing in Palestine?Why are we putting up with this horrible relgious murdreous greedy group of aliens.Nothing will change folks--Americans will continue to die for that shitty little country called Israel. I hate persons who call Saddam an evil man-killer and all that B.S.Look at your own leaders--they have killed millions.I bet if Saddam is let out and allowed to govern Iraq--peace Brothers.If it was up to me--I'd make sure all USA soldiers never see light of day--8 feet under.That might stop America from trusting jews again--more like--no more wars for along time!

    Posted by geo1671 at 07/01/2005 @ 01:16am

34. Bravo to you, NACL, for pointing out that 9/11 was an escalation, not an isolated event. In your next post, please explain how and why your American President and his administration did nothing to prevent the hijackings. PDB: "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." Administration response: "Oh, we know that, that's historical information. Let's continue our Crawford vacation". Perhaps it's not enough for liberals to point out that war against Iraq was unnecessary, and is now SNAFU, like so much of what this administration puts its efforts to. Perhaps we should take your next logical step and start silencing those who support this administration.

    Posted by nathanhale at 07/01/2005 @ 10:06am

35. Nathanhale

    You said: "your next post, please explain how and why your American President and his administration did nothing to prevent the hijackings. PDB:"

    Here we actually agree. I did vote for Bush however I find several faults in his handling of the war. In my opinion he should have went to the mid east, kicked ass and taken names years ago, well before even the U.S.S Cole incident.

    By letting these suicide bombings and attacks escalate with no clear reaction or retaliation on our part, we give the terrorists the impression that we are weak.

    A good analogy would be child throwing a temper tantrum at a grocery store, if the parent doesn't put their foot down and clearly deal with the issue sternly, the child would escalate the tantrums with each trip to the store. Spare the rod and spoil the child so to say.

    We spared the rod WAY to long. We should have brought down the rod on the hind end of the collective terrorists long ago, back into the first Bush administration and during the Clinton era.

    This of course is not an excuse for Bush to simply say, "It was my predecessors fault for not dealing with this problem" as he has implied several times in the past. He still should have dealt with the issue much earlier and more sternly.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/01/2005 @ 10:16am

36. OKSPORTSGUY, your history does not go back far enough. Go back to Ronald Reagan, another Republican President who came to the job ill-prepared as a statesman, but with a catchy "compassionate conservative" message. Reagan hit the Grand Slam: Iran-Contra, a swift retreat after the barracks bombing in Beirut, arm and train bin Laden in Afghanistan, and sell WMD to Iraq (check Donald Rumsfeld's pockets, he may still have the receipts). Now, of course, you have this Bush, who prepared for the presidency by getting drunk and doing naked table dances (so I hear), or getting drunk and driving, or getting drunk and failing in the business world until he gave up drinking to trade exclusively on the family name. No wonder this job of president is hard work for him... In any event, UNMOVIC was on the ground in Iraq gathering the evidence that would have debunked the administration's "mushroom cloud" warnings that were used to sell the invasion. Al-Samoud missiles that could have reached Israel were being dismantled. What terrorists there were in Iraq were operating in the no-fly zone, more or less under our protection. Hmm. Seems to me, there's not much of a threat there... Meanwhile, if the rationale for the Iraq invasion is that we needed an exotic locale to pursue the War on Terror, this week's downing of the Chinook in Afghanistan serves to remind that we were already taking on the terrorists, engaging them there so they would not hit us here. Your thoughts?

    Posted by nathanhale at 07/01/2005 @ 11:46am

37. Germany did not attack us at Pearl Harbor. The war is not simply against Al Qaeda, but against Islamic Fascism. I doubt that any of you would have approved of anything Bush might have done to prevent 9/11. Imagine if we had arrested one of the hijackers before 9/11 and were able to prevent the attacks because we got the information through an interrogation technique that utilized the "abuse" of the Left's precious Koran. You guys would have been raging against Bush and calling him a Nazi just as you are doing now, claiming that the plot to attack the Twin Towers was a fiction designed for --- you can fill in the rest.

    Posted by RonS at 07/01/2005 @ 11:52am

38. Nathan Hale,

    Ironically, by the way, my name is Todd Hale, and I graduated from Nathan Hale high school in Tulsa. Are you any relation to the patriot Nathan Hale? But I digress, back to your question, when you asked:

    "Meanwhile, if the rationale for the Iraq invasion is that we needed an exotic locale to pursue the War on Terror, this week's downing of the Chinook in Afghanistan serves to remind that we were already taking on the terrorists, engaging them there so they would not hit us here. Your thoughts?"

    Well, I agree with you, terrorism did not start on 9-11. It started a long time ago, but don't think for a minute I'm somehow blaming the U.S. foreign policy for terrorism. Terrorists are evil; they flew the planes into the buildings in New York. Regardless of our countries foreign policy of being "good" or "bad" in their opinion, that certainly does not give the right or justification for killing civilians in New York. The "terrorists" or "freedom fighters" or what ever you want to call Middle Eastern men that claim "Alla is great" as they blow themselves up with dynamite killing Americans or Jews in Israel all deserve to die a terrorists death.

    Am I now supposed to apologize for being unethical? I wouldn't hold your breath. Bush and his father, and you are absolutely right when you brought up Reagan, none of these presidents firmly dealt with terrorism. Instead we tried to "buy" freedom through negotiations (Iran Contra), some sort of demented arms in exchange for an assurance the "freedom fighters" would always be on the U.S.'s good team. We should have simply dealt strongly with all of these people LONG ago. As WW2 proved, true freedom only exists when one side totally annihilates the other side. How long did the world try to negotiate with Hitler? What was it that finally took the evil Hitler out of power? I'll answer the obviously rhetorical question; it was the British and U.S. forces destroying evil with good. That is the ONLY reason Hitler was defeated and you and I aren't speaking German today.

    Bush failed in this sense, so did his father, so did Clinton, and so did Reagan.

    Positive re-enforcement to get people to react in a way you want them to react only works when the moral values of both parties are in line with each other. Terrorists do not share the same moral backbone of civilized people.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/01/2005 @ 12:11pm

39. Yo, RONS, I hear ignorance is bliss, but in the real world it can be dangerous. Fact is, one of the hijackers was arrested before 9/11, but no legal basis could be found to search his computer...perhaps if some people in the administration had had their hair on fire, a search warrant might have been obtained? Have you heard the name Zacarias Moussaoui? If your war is against Islamic fascism, what supports invading a country that is run by a secular fascist? Is Saudi Arabia an Islamic Fascist state (I hear they have people there who will fly airplanes into the Twin Towers)? Why not just carpet-bomb the Middle East with nukes, from Kabul to Cairo, they're all just a bunch of backwards-writing raghead camel-drivers...er, sorry, I mean, vicious killers. And RONS, tell the truth...isn't your God greater than their God?

    Posted by nathanhale at 07/01/2005 @ 12:33pm

40. NathanHale, Ah, so it must Bush's fault there was no legal basis to search the computer. My point is that if we had someone WE knew was involved in the type of attack warned in that briefing, would you have approved of any means to extract that information? Yes, we need regime change in Saudi Arabia and other nations in the MidEast. Also, I am an atheist. I also befriended many atheist and Marxists Iranians when I was abroad, but I guess there is no longer international solidarity on the Left, now that you guys have found religion (Islam, post 9/11). But tell me, how would you have gotten any of the 9/11 hijackers to talk?

    Posted by RonS at 07/01/2005 @ 12:42pm

41. NaCl: The US was the force behind arms control programs stymieing despots dreaming of A bombs. She was the champion of a Western wave threatening traditional Islamic society. She pushed to open closed societies, was the sole supporter of Israel, insisted on human rights, and lambasted rogue states.

    You consider this reality? The US could hardly be called a force for arms control programs, considering how much munitions the US sells every year and has been selling for the past fifty years. Who do you think sold Saddam all his poison gases? It's hardly sensible to be outraged at Saddam for using chemical weapons on Kurdish women and children when you gave him the stuff and told him to use it on Iranian women and children.

    As far as lambasting rogue states goes, that depends on your definition of "rogue". Certianly, the US quashed numerous rogue democracies in Central and South America that were threatening to make American corporations pay business taxes or pay for their use of natural resources. The military dictatorships that followed may have been brutal, but I guess they weren't rogue.

    American foreign policy has been checkered at best, and generates a lot of resentment when it's poor- nobody likes to be oppressed. This is what causes terrorism.

    Posted by madalch at 07/01/2005 @ 1:16pm

42. Todd:

    Your solution to foreign policy, in your words, is "Spare the rod and spoil the child". Has it occured to you that Arabs and other foreigners don't really take well to being considered children?

    The USA is not the world's parent and has no business "disciplining" other countries. Do you go around spanking your neighbors when don't go to church or otherwise misbehave?

    Posted by madalch at 07/01/2005 @ 1:20pm

43. "Your solution to foreign policy, in your words, is "Spare the rod and spoil the child". Has it occured to you that Arabs and other foreigners don't really take well to being considered children?"

    Were you under some impression that I cared what they think of us?

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/01/2005 @ 2:20pm

44. What ho, Todd?

    I'm not sure how my handle crept into this thread, but I can't help but reply...and, by the way, thanks for the props referring to me as an 'elite progressive'...I'll wear that as a badge of high honor though I still prefer the term LIBERAL!

    Now, more to the point, I have never doubted that you possess the requisite intelligence to make up your own mind about all the issues at hand or to vote your conscience. I guess it simply baffles me that a seemingly reasonable person can continue to defend the indefensible and call it a rational argument based on the evidence.

    In fact, when presented with the evidence, your pat retort is something along the lines of, "the irony is I don't care about the evidence all I care about is kicking butt and taking names." While that might be the expected conclusion of a debate on the elementary school playground, it seems a bit naive and childish to me.

    I am sorry if I too frequently let my impatience with such an obstinate denial of the facts color my commentary to the extent that you feel I don't actually read or respond to your posts beyond hurling invective. If that is the really the case, however, why did we finally get down to brass tax when I got you to quit using Jesus to justify your bloodlust and to concede the following:

    "Ya, you're right Cyclops, I'll leave my faith out of it.

    How about this?

    As a Bush supporter, and Halliburton stock owner, and conservative, I just like the fact that we are kicking terrorist ass and taking names in Iraq.

    I think that works better.

    Todd"

    As I said in my reply to that one...

    Bravo, how forthright. It's good to know you finally dropped the façade of righteousness by pointing out your vested monetary interests in this profligate misadventure! It really was getting tiresome reading your rants about killing, butt-kicking, and name-taking all justified in Jesus' name. At last I can understand your coldhearted, mercenary, and hateful motivations. Apparently, it serves some therapeutic purpose for you to dehumanize people in order to make all this more palatable and bolster your own (perhaps flagging) ego, but the fact remains that you simply like being the world's bully (or was it the world's stern father?) and making a bit of scrilla in the process.

    I guess it might help you deal with the resultant guilt of such a coldly cynical, and, arguably, sociopathic nature to try and make it all so black and white, so US vs. THEM. But, ultimately, if you ascribe even slightly to the true Christian tenets of love, forgiveness, and compassion that you so completely misrepresent albeit vehemently espouse, then maybe there is still hope. That it why I have so berated you…because I still have hope that there really is someone in there that KNOWS better. I guess that was just my way of trying to avoid "sparing the rod and spoiling the Todd."

    Love, Peace, and Hippie Beads! cyclops

    You have, in fac

    Posted by cyclops at 07/01/2005 @ 3:12pm

45. MADALCH

    The US could hardly be called a force for arms control programs, considering how much munitions the US sells every year and has been selling for the past fifty years. Who do you think sold Saddam all his poison gases? It's hardly sensible to be outraged at Saddam for using chemical weapons on Kurdish women and children when you gave him the stuff and told him to use it on Iranian women and children.

    The US conceived and set up the nuclear non-proliferation program and the IAEA. It has been the principle country supporting rigorous enforcement. That is what I was obviously talking about.

    As to being a weapon producer and seller, certainly. But no more so than countries like Switzerland and Sweden, when relative size is considered.

    The fact is that outside of the Cold War scenario the US has been remarkably restrained. Thus in Central and South America it has refused to sell heavy arms and the chance to make billions in profits.

    It refused to sell Iraq a single rifle when Saddam was spending $100 billion on arms. All the upstanding Europeans and peace loving Chinese and Soviets however, had no trouble stuffing him with every weapon (and a nuclear reactors) he wanted.

    That included chemical and bacteriological labs and material. That capacity was sold to Saddam not by the US but by the Soviets and French and Germans. Including training for technicians in Leningrad labs.

    Tehran reported the first Iraqi chemical attack, on Susangerd, in Nov 1980, two months after the war's outbreak. Many other such attacks followed, and Iran replied in kind. That did not involve the US which did not so much as have diplomatic relations with Iraq until Nov 1984. When Saddam gassed his own Kurdish city of Halabja it was with MIG and Mirage planes dropping canisters containing a Soviet cocktail of poisons. Where is your outrage at that?

    The only nation that ever made relations with Iraq conditional on human rights adherence, most explicitly in National Security Directive #26, was the US.

    During the Cold War the US had little choice but to make the prevention of a communist ground fire her main aim, and to subordinating all to that. Since then however, the US has nudged every country into the region toward a democratic system.

    Posted by nacl at 07/01/2005 @ 3:14pm

46. Oops, I don't know how that extra bit got in there...I'll try and be a better editor in future.

    ps~should have also been "That [is] why I have so berated you..."

    Again, sorry about. Typing too fast, like jumping to simplistic conclusions, can easily lead to error.

    cyclops

    Posted by cyclops at 07/01/2005 @ 3:18pm

47. American foreign policy did not create the terrorism of 9/11. The Vietnamese and the Chileans have never committed such vile acts, and it would never occur to them to do such a thing, whatever their anger over what our foreign policy did to them. The cause of the terrorism is the emotional plague of fascism that has spread throughout the mideast. Read "The Mass Psychology of Fascism" by Wilhelm Reich.

    Posted by RonS at 07/01/2005 @ 3:20pm

48. My friend Cyclops, you said: "How about this? As a Bush supporter, and Halliburton stockowner, and conservative, I just like the fact that we are kicking terrorist ass and taking names in Iraq. I think that works better. Todd" As I said in my reply to that one... "

    You take me way too seriously my friend. I only said that because that's what you where ultimately trying to get out of me. The reality is this; I treat the world's economy like I treat worldly ethics and the courts. I don't trust them or believe in them. I don't have any money in the stock market.

    This is one area where you and I agree. I don't really like the government, nor do I trust it. The only reason I like Bush is that his enemy is my enemy, fundamental Islamic terrorists. Other than that, I couldn't care less about him or his administration.

    As I have said before, the Kingdom I belong to is not an earthly one. It's certainly not Bush's. I voted for him and probably would again if he could run, but only because of the lesser of two evils syndrome, the alternative other than Bush was Kerry, and that would have been much worse.

    Don't take me so seriously my friend, who knows you might actually enjoy having a steak and a coke with me, assuming you aren't a vegetarian.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/01/2005 @ 4:10pm

49. The US conceived and set up the nuclear non-proliferation program and the IAEA. It has been the principle country supporting rigorous enforcement. That is what I was obviously talking about.

    One area where the Bush Administration is horribly hypocritical and two-faced.

    The BA has failed to stop North Korea from developing nuclear weapons. When Bush came to power, they were still in development... now they have several, and are as belligerant as ever.

    Likewise, the U.S. under Bush has cozied up to Pakistan, the same nation that traded nuclear technology with NK in exchange for missile technology, and also provided other nations like Libya and Iran with information and equipment to build the bomb. I would also point out that Pakistan is the center of radical Islam.

    Then there is the little matter of the nuclear bunker-buster bombs...

    As to being a weapon producer and seller, certainly. But no more so than countries like Switzerland and Sweden, when relative size is considered.

    The fact is that outside of the Cold War scenario the US has been remarkably restrained. Thus in Central and South America it has refused to sell heavy arms and the chance to make billions in profits.

    Really? How many Swedish Saabs does Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Israel have? How many Swiss tanks?

    It refused to sell Iraq a single rifle when Saddam was spending $100 billion on arms. All the upstanding Europeans and peace loving Chinese and Soviets however, had no trouble stuffing him with every weapon (and a nuclear reactors) he wanted.

    That included chemical and bacteriological labs and material. That capacity was sold to Saddam not by the US but by the Soviets and French and Germans. Including training for technicians in Leningrad labs.

    Not true!

    http://www.rense.com/general29/wesold.htm

    This document even provides the manifest of items shipped.

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/btwc-iraq_report_oct04.doc

    Tehran reported the first Iraqi chemical attack, on Susangerd, in Nov 1980, two months after the war's outbreak. Many other such attacks followed, and Iran replied in kind. That did not involve the US which did not so much as have diplomatic relations with Iraq until Nov 1984. When Saddam gassed his own Kurdish city of Halabja it was with MIG and Mirage planes dropping canisters containing a Soviet cocktail of poisons. Where is your outrage at that?

    Irrelevant. It's not a valid arguement as Iraq was an ally at the time against Iran. If the U.S. knew that the Iraqi's were using WMD then, and did nothing to stop it, then they in fact condoned it.

    The only nation that ever made relations with Iraq conditional on human rights adherence, most explicitly in National Security Directive #26, was the US.

    See above. I would also add that if the U.S. is so concerned with human rights, then why does it continue to bend over backwards to provide nations like communist China with all sorts of economic incentives, when it is still the same regime that murdered 50 million of it's own people?

    During the Cold War the US had little choice but to make the prevention of a communist ground fire her main aim, and to subordinating all to that. Since then however, the US has nudged every country into the region toward a democratic system.

    WHat is your point? Just because a nation holds elections does not mean it is free. Remember, Saddam Hussein was elected into power.

    Posted by Turbostang at 07/01/2005 @ 6:57pm

50. NATHANHALE

    9/11 was an escalation, not an isolated event.

    That is true, but you missed the larger point.

    Those many incidents of which 9/11 was just the most extreme, did not spring from just one source. They had many authors and reached back for decades and to a diverse spectrum. What unites it all was a fear, hate, distrust and envy of the United States. That pathological mind set had many practitioners, not just Osama. It comprises a large and loose coalition of many individuals, groups and regimes, and includes the radical left and right. My hunch is the first manifestation of that entire trend had been the assassination of JFK.

    So responding to 9/11 required not just striking at a band in a cave in Afghanistan. It was necessary to deliver a blow against that entire pack and mind set.

    My point was that Saddam had become the most vocal and visible and dangerous, the most representative of that constellation. That is why the US immediately linked Iraq to that attack and aimed its counterattack at her.

    Perhaps it's not enough for liberals to point out that war against Iraq was unnecessary, and is now SNAFU,

    As just explained, wringing Saddam's neck was absolutely necessary. It was the only way to respond to 9/11. Moreover, that reply was briliantly executed.

    What the US is presently engaged in is quite apart from responding to 9/11. It is an attempt to change the dynamics of the Middle East. It is not easy going. It may not succeed, but it is worth trying.

    In your next post, please explain how and why your American President and his administration did nothing to prevent the hijackings.

    Your question has the same paranoid basis as, why did FDR do nothing about warnings of an imminent Pear Harbor attack?

    Perhaps we should take your next logical step and start silencing those who support this administration.

    Perhaps you forgot to take your pills?

    Posted by nacl at 07/01/2005 @ 7:19pm

51. Is it me or do most of the people on this forum not understand that no "operational realtionship" does not diminish the fact that Iraq provided material support to AL Qeada? The Clinton Administration obviously believed this, I guess things just change when a republican occupies the oval office.

    Posted by Devils05 at 07/01/2005 @ 8:52pm

52. TURBOSTANG

    First of all, a letter is usually addressed. It helps get it to the intended recipient. That also works with posts. And since you like boldfacing, boldfacing a handle is appropriate, it helps catch your correspondent's eye.

    To my claim that Iraq's weapons and her c/b warfare capability came from France, Germany and the USSR, you say: "Not True!" and offer a rense.com link which claims the US sold Iraq poisons from 1985 until March 1992. You add, "This document even provides the manifest of items shipped." That is supposed to settle the matter.

    Quite apart from not providing any manifest, your reply is manifestly absurd. Even if the US shipped dangerous materials to Saddam, how does that prove Iraq had not purchased cutting edge laboratories from France and Germany and had not had its technicians trained in Russia?

    Moreover, why are Iraq's 1980 chemical attacks "irrelevant" and "not a valid argument"? How were those attacks possible if Saddam was beholden to the US for his chemicla warfare capablity, yet the US had not talked to him or sold him so much as a bullet since 1967?

    You see that as irrelevant because "Iraq was an ally at the time against Iran."

    Iraq was nothing of the kind. She was in the Soviet camp and on America's list of rogue states. Iraq was taking advantage of Iran's military disarray, following the Ayatollah's revolution, to bite off a coveted piece of Iranian coastline. She was not so much as on speaking terms with the US, much less, in cahoots.

    With reestablished relations Iraq was able to go shopping in the US. As a modern nation with a petro-chemical industry and a scientific sector operating hospitals and medical schools, and producing pharmaceuticals and herbicides she had a legitimate need for toxic chemicals and virulent cultures. Such materials inevitably have dual purpose potential. Many formula can be retro-engineered. Virtually any material, certainly any nitrate, can be a dangerous precursor. But nothing was sold other than on the basis of applications showing well justified and reasonable, peaceful needs.

    For example, anthrax is probably the bitterest accusation hurled at the US. However, the strain supplied, Sterne, is not the strain the US used for its military anthrax. The cultures were delivered under a UN cow vaccination program. They were not sold as an aerosol which is the only form in which the anthrax spore become a dangerous weapon. Another country that sold Iraq anthrax cultures, quite benignly, was France, via the Pasteur institute in Paris.

    Finally, none of the US materials were ever traced to weapons employed by Saddam. As indicated, he had ample supplies for scores of deadly chemical attacks, before the US was even talking to him. The gas canisters dropped on Halabja by MIGs and Super-Etendards were found and analyzed. They had contained a cocktail of poisons associated with a Soviet formula.

    As to your 33 page globalsecurity report, you are going to have to specify what information on which page you think makes what argument.

    Really? How many Swedish Saabs does Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Israel have? How many Swiss tanks?

    Sweden sells everything from submarines to fighter jets. It increased its military equipment exports from 6.5 billion to 7.2 billion Krona ($819 million to $908 million) during 2004. That from a country of only 9 million people. The US has 30 times as many people. Its weapon sales in 2001 totaled $12 billion and actual deliveries were at under $10 billion. That according to Amnesty Int'l.

    Switzerland, with 7 million people had a substantially larger arms export industry than Sweden. Their armored cars, missile launchers, assault weapons (SIG), STOL aircraft, military electronics, small caliber cannon, are world famous. At one time every ship in Britain's Royal Navy was equipped with Oerlikon ack ack. The business was so large, and revelations about arms deals, not least to Saddam, were so embarrassing, that the Swiss had a national plebiscite in 1997. They voted to virtually shot down military exports.

    You also touch other fields like North Korea and China, but enough.

    Posted by nacl at 07/02/2005 @ 01:16am

53. My favorite part of the speech was when Iraq became a central front in the "war on terrors" by making it appear Osama himself (who was apparently speaking for all terrorists) had declared Iraq was a central front.

    The part of the speech I'm refering to:

    ---------------

    Some wonder whether Iraq is a central front in the war on terror. Among the terrorists, there is no debate. Hear the words of Osama Bin Laden: "This Third World War is raging" in Iraq. "The whole world is watching this war." He says it will end in "victory and glory, or misery and humiliation."

    ---------------

    If you didn't read the transcript, and saw it on TV you might be left with the impression that Osama said "This 3rd world war is raging in Iraq. and that it will end in victory and glory, or misery and humiliation."

    Now the war in Iraq is framed as being "osama/Al-qaeda's" war, and that he's saying he can/will defeat the US there. Which of course means the US has to stay the course and get the "terrors & Osama" there, so they don't get us (again) here. Also we have to show the "evildoers" that we don't back down from terrorists, especially not Osama.

    Pretty slick move, and for the dimmer bulbs in the US it cements the non-existant "osama & Iraq = 9/11 & terrorisim" connection as being true. That makes it almost effortless to manipulate those people into support of the "war on terrors" and the war in Iraq, because they have been framed as one and the same by putting a few words into Osama's mouth.

    It also makes it easy to call someone who doesn't support the war in Iraq a "terrorist" or a "al-qaeda terrorist supporter" so that they can be marginalized, labeled, and ignored on the situation in Iraq if they say anything that hits too close to home, or if they are influencing people and gaining support to pull the troops out of Iraq.

    Posted by EGisJUICE at 07/03/2005 @ 1:35pm

54. EGISJUICE

    Isn't it interesting that no one mentions the very ominous tactics that you have revealed? Where are the journalists who should be the first to recognize such propagandist techniques? Where are the news commentators who should be vehemently exposing such Goebbel-esque rhetorical deceptions?

    The Free Press has become the new oxymoron in our society. The mega-corporations have bought the rights to broadcast media and have enslaved the truth in silence. Bill Moyers was perhaps the last remnant of an objective news journalist in broadcast media, and he has been effectively eliminated from PBS. We need some true objective journalists to come forward and report the facts without a Rovian spin or corporate inspired priorities. In other words, we need some true patriots in Washington D.C. and the media to muster the courage to fight for an American ideology that was once truly great by using what made it great…a free press.

    Good job EGISJUICE. Now if you could only get some air time on a mass media venue to get more people thinking.

    Regards, Alias

    Posted by Alias at 07/04/2005 @ 12:29pm