It's not imploding enough in my books; more than 50 percent of Americans still think Bush did the right thing in starting the war with Iraq - for the Iraqi People. c.i.
Remember the jokes and discussions about "what the discussion of is is?" And what it referred to? And the enormous fuss raised over the ethics of a president's lying? Seems like only yesterday.
Well, here's the next spin on this affair. From the Wednesday issue of the New York Times:
"Inteligence officials have also said that the intelligence estimate, which provided an overview assessment of the status of Iraq's programs to develop weapons of mass destruction, was put together hastily and only at the request of Senate Democrats, who wanted to see the report before they voted on a war resolution.
The document was assembled in just three weeks,"record time," said one official, who addded that it included imprecise language on the Niger unranium reports.
So, reading this, one could gather that intelligence data on Iraq-Niger and other matters was not really there, but only quickly gathered to satisfy the questioning of Democrat Senators (presumably, the Republican Senators weren't interested) who were being pressured to vote on a war resolution. And "imprecise language" was used in a very quick gathering of of reports on the Niger uranium."
The best face to put on this is that our intelligence was not good (despite some detailed, signed reports now beginning to appear that show investigations and reports wee being made steadily), which means that Tenet is the buried one. But Tenet has made it implicitly clear that he is being heroic, that he will die for his country, without really admitting the other parts. On the other hand, the buried foes are the Democrats, because it is their fault that this information - so vital - was so quickly, and therefore incorrectly - assembled. The buried face is also the British, who claim intelligence from foreign sources, which they are not at libery to disclose, and therefore did not share with the U.S., who claim to have gotten their own vital evidence from British intelligence.
And then we have Pat Robertson - who may be the buried bullet. He is calling for the resignation of three Justices, on the basis of age and health. But the one with heart problems is being thought of as Cheney (a wily move on the part of Robertson).
Actually, the PNAC presents a road map. It charts out a path for the U.S. to take for dominance in the mideast, starting with Iraq, and this starts earlier than 9/11. Has nothing to do with intelligence, but rather with ambition and plans for world domination.
It is difficult - even for me - to conceive of the fact that so many in our government would not be able to tell the truth, to shoulder responsibility, to at least have made cogent plans for the afterwards. But once the lies start, a snowball is set to roll. And, unless some sort of braking is applied, that snowball gathers strength as it rolls downward. I can understand the Bush babies' backing and filling on this. Once the truth outs, they're toast.
Also in today's Times, William Perry says he believes the U.S. has lost control of the situation in North Korea. Bush refuses to talk to their leader at all - no diplomatic relations. Perry's feeling is that we are headed towards something bad.
Doesn't it make you shiver to think that George Bush and his "advisors" (handlers?) are in charge of dealing with North Korea? It's like a pack of teenagers from a Fundamentalist, Evangelical church high school department being given the responsibility to manage the entire world. I am hoping this is the beginning, c.i. of that 50 percent count diminishing, and drastically.
Thanks to all of you who have posted such excellent links.
Oh, and on the subject of penises being "drawn in," who was it that forgot to wear his flight suit properly with all the conservative republican women swooning? That one wasn't even drawn in, it was simply misguided. Laughing....... Talk about adolescent behavior.
What makes me shiver is that Clinton laid down for NK and they are now gambling that the US will do so again, if they bluster and rattle their saber enough. It is a dangerous game, but one Clinton taught them they could win. We must now teach them that they cannot.
Lola had the nerve to say--
Oh, and on the subject of penises being "drawn in," who was it that forgot to wear his flight suit properly with all the conservative republican women swooning? That one wasn't even drawn in, it was simply misguided. Laughing....... Talk about adolescent behavior.
----------
George's package definitely caught my attention. Was it two pair of socks, or the GOP jewels...? But, really Lola. You should let the wimmin get their fun where ever they can. Blatham's pic seems to have a drawn in willy.
PS--This was a good topic. Hope we continue to revisit for updates.
Scrat,
I know you think, as does Bush and most of the Fundamentalist crowd, that a punitive response to a threat of danger is the wisest course of action. But I disagree. It can serve, and presently serving the purpose of throwing grease into a fire. We're seeing it in Iraq now, and we'll see it happen everywhere simplistic, legalistic, punitive methods are used (and sold to the public as wisdom) to solve these complicated problems in the world. Rove is a dangerous man, far more dangerous that Saddam ever has been. I hope the American people wake up soon enough because if they don't, tragedy will be the result. And this time the tragedy will affect the American people to a far greater extent than has ever been the case before. And I must say, it is about time.
Lola - No, you do not know what I think nor do you care, as evident in the fact that you would rather tell me what I think than ask. I have no desire to punish NK for anything. I simply believe that capitulating to their threats and blackmail is a slippery slope upon which Clinton placed us and from which we must escape. Attacking NK is not something I would advocate as the best way to do this.
Scrat darlin, I do care what you think. Thank you for that clarification. And I'm sorry I forgot to ask. However, I still disagree with your idea that a failure to threaten violence would amount to a "capitulation." I think Bush is trigger happy and I know he's a punitive little jerk, so we'll leave it at that.
Sofia,
The story I heard was that Bush forgot (or was ignorant of, which is more likely) to do something (I admit my ignorance of what it was myself) to his flight suit so that he was walking around with what looked like the family jewels when really he had simply shown his ignorance. Does anyone else remember this story? Was it later disproved?
I'm glad you're enjoying the discussion. I am too. It's fun to discuss topics in a civil manner, as I know you've always tried to do.
while scrat is accurate that Clinton did not know what to do about NK the same can be said about every president since Truman. I am sure that Bush and Co are far wiser than his predecessors (well not really) and its always nice to know that Clinton is still available to catch the fallout from minimalist thinkers. Now if there was only some way we can do a go-back and let Reagan blame Clinton for the messes he made. Beirut comes to mind.
lola - My point was that I do not think we need to threaten violence in NK. I believe there is a middle road between bending over for them and attacking or threatening to attack them, though perhaps getting them to walk that road may require their recognition of the existence--in distant and hopefully very unlikely terms--of dire consequences for continuing down the path they are currently taking (or threatening to take). (If that to you means we are "threatening them" then perhaps that's where we disagree--or one place, at least.)
I don't mean to suggest that any tactic we choose is absolutely assured of resolving this mess, but neither do I think our government is being quite as ham-handed in its handling of this as you seem to believe. NK seeks to blackmail us into giving them what they want. We could obviously resolve the issue--in the short term--by giving them what they want. The problem is that we did exactly that under Clinton, and here we are a few years later, and NK has chosen to break the agreements they struck then, threaten the same things they did then, and seemed confident that they would once again get whatever they wanted from us by this process. Unless we want to be held over a barrel every 5-10 years like this, we have to stop and say, "No".
But thanks for the cordial reply. (!)
Posting this thread for any who would vote in the poll or wish to check out the three sources about this mind-boggling fiasco:
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=9522&highlight=
Glad to see you started this discussion Lola!
dyslexia wrote:while scrat is accurate that Clinton did not know what to do about NK the same can be said about every president since Truman.
You may have a good point there, though my point was not to denigrate Clinton's abilities, but simply to suggest that his administration's handling of the NK question have--in my opinion--directly led to the current outcome. I do not have a crystal ball with which to predict whether the current administration will do better, but I do agree with their decision not to knuckle under to NK's attempt to extort preferential treatment by threatening nuclear war.
Here's another relevant letter. Sorry, I have no link to provide.
By Terri Judd
14 July 2003
Paratrooper Andrew Kelly's letter to his father was written in high spirits, relaying exuberant details of a "mega war" of "storming bridges", of taking "AK fire". His excitement was also in his signoff: "When I get back, let's have a pint, maybe 10".
His father Rob Kelly, who served with the Navy for 24 years, recalled yesterday: "I read it and went out to get some blueys - airmail letters - to send from the family, and then I got a call from my ex-wife. My feelings at that point are indescribable, your worst nightmare. While I was reading his letter, my son was already dead." This morning, Mr Kelly will send his own, carefully constructed letter to Tony Blair. In it, he blames the Prime Minister for his son's death in an "unjustified" war, and will call on Mr Blair to resign.
Mr Kelly's disdain for Mr Blair is clear from the outset. He writes: "I cannot begin to explain to you how I feel about losing my son nor do I believe that you care or would understand."
But the crux of his complaint is Mr Blair's attempts to justify the war, that has ,so far, seen 42 British servicemen lose their lives. Andrew, at 18, is the youngest to die.
Mr Kelly, 54, now a restaurateur, tells Mr Blair: "I hold you personally responsible for my son's death as well as those of the other servicemen killed as a result of your decision to go to war with Iraq. Unless you can justify the war with Iraq, I say you should take responsibility for your decision and stand down from your position as Prime Minister of our great country to enable a person with integrity, who has the interests of our country at heart, to lead with sincerity and dignity."
A veteran of the Falklands conflict who considers himself anything but a pacifist, Mr Kelly supported his son's lifelong ambition to join the Parachute Regiment, and backed him when he went out to Iraq. But he believes Mr Blair was guilty of an inexplicable decision when he sent British troops to war against Iraq.
Mr Kelly cares little for the nuance of the 45-minute claim or the "sexing-up" of documents to support the case for military action against Saddam Hussein. He considers, though, that all diplomatic avenues were not exhausted before troops - including his boy - were sent into combat.
Mr Kelly explained yesterday: "Even if there were weapons of mass destruction, it was still no reason to go to war. We should have sent people in to find them. When Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands, we didn't declare war we just took them back.
"I don't disagree with war, and I agree that Saddam Hussein was a dictator. He should never have been in power but you have to do things properly.
"I would have always feared this could happen if my son went to war. But I would understand if someone was threatening our country. This was not the case - there was no reason to go to war."
Five days after his 18th birthday, Andrew Kelly, a "sincere, funny" young man with a "sense of right and wrong" who joined the army at 16 - headed off to the Gulf. As psyched up as one might expect of a teenager who always carried a copy of Maroon Machine - a poem that extols the fearlessness of paratroopers - he still turned to his father for advice on occasions.
Mr Kelly said: "The night before he went, we were talking about it and I said if he did go into conflict he would come back a changed person. When you are 18 years old, you have no concerns whatsoever. I said to him be prepared to be scared. Do as you are told and don't be a hero.
"There is absolutely no point when your son is going out there in saying I don't agree with it. There is no way I would do that to my son. He had to have the confidence that his family was behind him."
Ten weeks later, Mr Kelly watched as Private Kelly's coffin, draped with the Union flag, was borne into St Mary and St Julian Church at Maker in East Cornwall.
Serving with the 3rd Battalion Parachute Regiment, part of the 16 Air Assault Brigade, the teenager from Tavistock, Devon, helped to secure Basra and the surrounding oil fields during the early weeks. "When war ended, I thought 'Thank God my son is safe'," said Mr Kelly.
But shortly after 6am on 6 May he died at the unit's Basra base after an "accidental discharge" of a weapon - a matter which is still being investigated by the army authorities. His last letter home to his family ended with the bullish postscript: "Paras don't die, they go to heaven and regroup."
His father concluded yesterday: "This is not a vindictive letter [to Tony Blair]. It is not a letter of hate or anger - it is just a letter of feelings, very strong feelings. My son would be here now if war hadn't been declared."
© 2001 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd
Lola, Was your point that Republican women wouldn't know what to do with it outside of a flight suit? Or did I misunderstand?
Scrat,
My point is that when one rattles one's saber (or attracts the attention of NK to the "dire consequences," however distant or "unlikely"they may be), the time ultimately comes when one may be called upon to produce said sabre. And since it's George Bush's sabre I do believe has been penciled in, I'm worried about what will have to happen when that time arrives. The ability to kill people does not a sabre make.
I wonder (remembering to ask) if you have any thoughts about why the NKians are now violating the agreement made with Clinton. Could it be that the USA, home of the free and brave, has carried out a pre-emptive strike against Iraq and NK is now feeling threatened and in need to defend itself? Those in control in NK are not known for their wisdom and restraint when it comes to firing sabers, so it seems it may be wise to step very carefully in these negotiations with them. Waving stories about how mercenary and and dangerously well equipped they are and how we must, much to our chagrin, protect the world from their horrible menace does not strike me as a method for calming troubled waters.
Yes, I think we do disagree about the wisest method for handling matters such as these. But I'm happy to learn that you aren't as extreme in your ideas as I had assumed you to be.
Tartarin,
That is one of the latent messages in my post above to Sofia. I'm glad you could decipher it. I was feeling the need to remain vague in the manifest content. :wink:
I believe that the comment I heard was that there is an apparatus that is tightened to keep the innards where they belong while pulling G-force and that it is very uncomfortable if not loosened on the ground. I think it was also pointed out that something still appeared to stuffed down there - like socks!
