Now Iraq is ok.

[madfloridian]

I have noticed that in the posts here, in the people I talk to who used to be against it, and in the media.

There was a huge push by people the world over to keep Bush from invading that country.

But now that he has done it, no one seems to worry too much about it.

We don't see much here about the deaths, more comfortable not to speak of it.

Not much talk about the fact that Saddam and Iraq were not responsible for 9/11. There used to be. It is more comfortable this way.

It makes it a lot easier to go to the next country/countries. Not so much outcry anymore.

[sangh0]

1. Statement from Kerry on CIA Director George Tenet’s GWU Speech

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0304d.html

Statement from John Kerry on CIA Director George Tenet’s Speech at Georgetown University


February 05, 2004

For Immediate Release


“Today, the CIA Director, George Tenet, admitted that the intelligence agencies never told the White House that Iraq posed an imminent threat. But that’s not what the Bush White House told the American people. They said Iraq posed a ‘mortal threat,’ an ‘urgent threat,’ an ‘immediate threat,’ a ‘serious threat,’ and, yes, an ‘imminent threat’ to the people of the United States.

“Today, we found out that George Bush, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, and the rest of the Administration weren’t passing on sound facts on Iraq to the American people - they were playing politics with our national security.

“Americans should be able to trust that what the President tells them is true - especially when it comes to the life and death decisions of war and peace.

“We need to restore America’s credibility around the world and the trust of the American people in their government at home. That’s not going to happen with a sham commission hand-picked by George Bush to look into how these faulty facts on Iraq made it to the American people. It’s not going to happen while the Bush White House continues its stalling and stonewalling. What we need is for this President to take responsibility - to face the truth - and to finally tell the truth to the American people. And we need that now.”

[Not Me]

7. Why doesn't Kerry call * a liar?

Just come out and use the word...in the context that "I voted to give the authority for the president to pursue military options in the Fall of 2002 based on my trust that he was telling the truth. He lied to me, to Congress, to the American people and to the world."

He cannot be trusted. He is a liar.

[WilliamPitt]

8. He plays a deeper game

By targeting Tenet, who knows everything about the truth of the 'intelligence failures' but is holding his cards close due to Bush fealty, it puts heat on the guy with all the answers. I'm fairly sure this won't be Kerry's last statement on the matter.

[Zhade]

45. But what if Tenet takes the fall again?

Kerry will have overplayed his hand. I truly hope Tenet would give up the b*shies, but he might take the fall. What then? :crazy:

[sangha]

61. How can we get Bush* without getting Tenet?

Prosecutions of criminal networks usually succeed because the investigators "flip" one of the lower level criminals by proving their guilt. They then offer the low level criminal an offer they can't refuse - "Squeal on your boss, or go to jail for a long, long time" It doesn't always work. Sometimes the crook is more afraid of their boss than they are of the criminal justice system, but if they don't try, how do they get to the boss?

[Zhade]

84. I agree with you. My question is, if it doesn't work, THEN what?

NT!

[sangh0]

10. Maybe you should write to Kerry

and maybe you should consider that your preference may not be the best way to address the situation. I'm not saying you're wrong to think it's important to call Bush* a liar, but it's possible, isn't it?

I'd appreciate it if you read that statement again. It is in no way a weak statement. It's filled with harsh words for Bush*.

[tobius]

12. 19 yr veteran senator who has access to intelligence under 8yrs of clinton

and access again during the bush term claims he was lied to? Not much credibility in that statement.-----


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

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

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

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - Then-President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein ... The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real." - Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., Jan. 23, 2003

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

[sangh0]

14. Why not?

The access to intelligence that you speak of was intelligence that assumed that Iraq DID have nukes and other WMD's, and WAS trying to get more, in many cases due to PNACer's deceptions.

The quotes you provide show that the intelligence strongly suggested that Iraq was rearming, so why isn't it credible for Kerry to say he thought Saddam was rearming, and that Bush* lied?

[GreenArrow]

23. probably because there is a non-partisan US foreign policy

continuum at work here, just as there is with Israel and Palestine. What do you suppose Kerry means when he said there was a right way to go in and a wrong way, and Bush chose the wrong way? Invading Iraq and getting its oil was in the works for a long time, but the way it was done is not the way it should have been done.

[sangh0]

24. Thanks for the distraction

but tobius and I were discussing whether or not Kerry should have known Bush* was lying, and not what the war was about. I realize that you feel strongly about this (most of us do), but still, isn't it rude to inject your issue into other people's discussion of a different aspect of the issue?

[tobius]

40. It is not credible.

clinton still said in Oct 2003 that he believed saddam had wmd. No one claimed they had "nukes". The head of CIA Tenet was appointed by clinton and kept by bush. If bush lied the clinton administration lied.


during a Floor speech on October 9, 2002, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) said, "And we are here today in the year 2002 with an un-inspected four-year interval during which time we know through intelligence he not only has kept them, but he continues to grow them.....The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new." http://www.house.gov/mica/issuesiraq2.htm

JOHN EDWARDS: "We know that he (Hussein) has chemical and biological weapons." (Oct. 10, 2002) See: http://www.senate.gov/~edwards/statements/20021010_iraq.html

On finding the alleged weapons Clark said: "I think they will be found. There's so much intelligence on this." (on CNN, April 2, 2003) See: http://www.fair.org/press-releases/clark-antiwar.html http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0301/18/smn.05.html, http://www-cgi.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0304/02/lt.08.html
WESLEY CLARK: "He (Hussein) does have weapons of mass destruction." When asked, "And you could say that categorically?" Clark responded: "Absolutely." (on CNN, Jan. 18, 2003).

   ''The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998.  We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities.  Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons. . . .'' -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

[sangha]

42. That does not make sense to me

"clinton still said in Oct 2003 that he believed saddam had wmd. No one claimed they had "nukes". The head of CIA Tenet was appointed by clinton and kept by bush. If bush lied the clinton administration lied."

How does that show that Kerry should have known Bush* was lying?

[tobius]

43. What does Kerry say bush lied about? nt

[sangha]

56. What Kerry says Bush* lied about is

1) The evidence that Saddam had WMD's
2) Using war as a last resort
3) Saddam's-Al Queda links

[GreenArrow]

19. that's what Dennis Kucinich and Al Sharpton are for

(and for that matter, everyone's favorite hobgoblin, Ralph Nader.)

Not being electable gives one a certain freedom to speak the truth. I suppose you could also say that speaking the truth makes one unelectable; either way it's the same. These guys will be hammering Bush on his lies for as long as they can. And John Kerry will benefit from it.

[Iverson]

2. You're close.

Apparently we've come to understand that preventive war could be a good thing if done the correct way. Apparently, the invasion was wrong for technical reasons, not fundamental ethical reasons.

I don't believe it myself, just reporting what I see. I hope that helps.

[gottaB]

13. speaking of fundamental ethical reasons...

It would be unethical of me not to take this opportunity to inform people of the differences between the Bush doctrine of pre-emption and the views of Senator Kerry.

An earlier post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=416711#417393

An informative link:

http://www.yesmagazine.org/iraq/morebushdoctrine.htm

An old news story:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/bush/story/0,7369,728870,00.html

Check this quote from that story:

The Bush doctrine is more sweeping. Even without an imminent threat, US troops in the area or hostilities under way, he claims the right to launch military strikes. "Our security will require transforming the military you will lead," he told cadets at West Point. "The military must be ready to strike at a moment's notice in any dark corner of the world. All nations that decide for aggression and terror will pay a price."

Many nations have exploited the "war on terrorism", either to gain favour with Washington or clamp down on dissent. The Bush doctrine goes further. The US president is hijacking the anti-terrorist agenda and crashing it into the most sacred skyscraper in New York: the headquarters of the UN. If his doctrine is not rapidly rejected by other states, preferably those which call themselves Washington's allies, Article 51 of the UN charter will have suffered a mortal blow.

Even Kerry's critics, despite their protestations, know that Kerry's position is substantially different Bush's. As Kerry said to Peace-Action:

American presidents have always had a right of pre-emption to address imminent threats. I support the right of pre-emption in the face of an imminent threat. But the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war is a dangerous departure from the time-tested principles of American foreign policy that have kept us safe.

Peace-Action says that Kerry's opposition to the Bush doctrine is unclear, but it they who are being unclear. Perhaps they are ignorant, and that is why they can't find it in themselves to speak the truth.

:shrug:

[Iverson]

15. could be ...

Or it could be that not every politician figured out what was bloody obvious to the record number of protestors worldwide.

[sangh0]

16. could be

or could it be that most of those "record numbers of protestors world wide" don't get to vote in US elections, and don't have our best interests in mind, and don't really agree with everything Iverson thinks?

[Iverson]

17. a gentle reminder

Determining whether one can vote in US elections or not is an unreliable method of evaluating whether one is on the right side of an issue.

Agreeing with everything I think is a naked straw man, even for you. On the other hand, a war of aggression in which civilians are the primary casualties is worth some examination. Sorry if the messenger isn't the centrist of your preference.

[sangh0]

18. a gentle reminder

Protestors in another country cannot be assumed to have the same motives and opinions as you.

[Iverson]

20. Right you are.

That is why I will never make that assertion.

However, the protestors in and around my home town generally had the same set of arguments against preventive war, and as far as I know, the same held true around world and in the Senate, in the presenting case.

Thus we return to what was bloody obvious.

[sangh0]

21. Sure you did

You pointed to all the protestors world wide as if they agreed with your position. And you try to subtly imply it again with "as far as I know, the same held true around world and in the Senate, in the presenting case."

IOW, you didn't say it, but you're happy to imply it.

[Iverson]

25. keep trying

Why do you think that there were record protests? Do you think that those people were for the war? Surely not. You aren't insane.

[sangh0]

26. I don't think they all knew Iraq had no WMD's

which is what you continue to imply, but won't state outright.

"Or it could be that not every politician figured out what was bloody obvious to the record number of protestors worldwide"

According to you, every protestor world wide knew what Al Gore, Bill Clinton, and John Kerry didn't.

[Iverson]

33. not exactly

"According to you, every protestor world wide knew what Al Gore, Bill Clinton, and John Kerry didn't."

No, unlike some around here, I am not so invested in making definite pronouncements about what's in other people's heads.

I can tell you, though, that Bush's credibility with the anti-war protestors was a lot lower than with those who stood "shoulder to shoulder" with him in the Rose Garden, or otherwise those who offered a more tepid "me too." Sen. Byrd was far more persuasive.

Besides, logically, the burden of proof was not on protestors to know that Iraq had no WMDs. The burden of proof was on those who waged a war of aggression, or otherwise supported it, whether actively or passively.

It's kind of ridiculous that I even have to point that out.

[sangh0]

35. So what?

I guess now that your innuendo has been exposed and shown to be untrue, you will now try to distract with the burden of proof argument, as if anyone here were disputing where the burden lay.

[Iverson]

37. eh?

The distraction was mainly you trying to make me the topic of focus.
Declare victory and retreat, guy.

[gottaB]

28. As one who protested the war and voted for Randall Forsberg

I'll tell you what I've figured out, and what's bloody obvious. Kerry's position on the IWR was not an endorsement of the Bush doctrine of pre-emption. It's not even similar. That's what I've figured out, though if I had been paying attention to international law back in 2002, and been a better study, it might have been bloody obvious to me.

What is bloody obvious and always has been bloody obvious is that the invasion of Iraq was a Bush initiative, that the doctrine of pre-emption is a Bush doctrine, and that if we don't acknowledge the differences between Bush and his Democratic opponent we will in all likelihood be faced with more invasions, more dangerous foreign policy adventures, and more bloody obvious bloody disasterous bloody consequences.

[sangh0]

31. Which shows

that many who complain about IWR don't really care about preventing war. They just want to whine about the past.

[gottaB]

32. Yes, it's about preventing war

and if I stopped to think about I would cry

[Iverson]

34. half a loaf ...

Kerry's position (your focus) may indeed be exactly as you say.
Kerry's vote (my focus) also had an effect.

"What is bloody obvious and always has been bloody obvious is that the invasion of Iraq was a Bush initiative..."

Of course.

[sangh0]

36. There's no "may" about it

Your inability to see this obvious fact renders your credibility on all thinks Kerry to a negligible level. Unless you want to tell me about how all the protesters world wide agree with you

[Iverson]

38. thanks for sharing

"Your inability to see this obvious fact renders your credibility on all thinks Kerry to a negligible level. Unless you want to tell me about how all the protesters world wide agree with you"

Fantasy, misquote, incoherence, what a bargain!

[shivaji]

74. As a former military man, I know for a fact that pre-emption

is a superior tactic than waiting to take the first blow.

[klyon]

47. We can't let it stand

I have not come to understand that preventive war could be good.
The invasion was wrong on all grounds technical, ethical, or any other, it was just flat wrong.

* should not be able to us Iraq or 9-11 as a badge of honor; when it is a complete horror and 9-11 was an intelligence failure of the highest order, at the very least.

KL

[WilliamPitt]

3. I did a DU search under 'Iraq'

Just the one word under 'Search all forums' in the last 24 hours.

It came up with 11 pages of hits. Here are the first three:

Kerry Says Bush Uses Sept. 11 in Ads to Scare America
Topic started by NNN0LHI on Mar-05-04 06:22 PM (4 replies)
Last modified by orlandoFL on Mar-05-04 06:28 PM
Khadr changes story, now says he was CIA spy - Globe and Mail
Topic started by Screaming Lord Byron on Mar-05-04 08:47 AM (8 replies)
Last modified by iverglas on Mar-05-04 06:28 PM
Bush*s Longtime Adviser Karen Hughes Back in Spotlight
Topic started by kskiska on Mar-05-04 05:55 PM (16 replies)
Last modified by KenLayedOff on Mar-05-04 06:26 PM
Bush Supporters Defend His New Ads (Using human remains as political tool)
Topic started by NNN0LHI on Mar-05-04 08:25 AM (91 replies)
Last modified by Disturbed on Mar-05-04 06:26 PM
Ok. Lawmaker Denies Using Hitler Angle (Vote Vs. W like a vote for Hitler)
Topic started by khephra on Mar-04-04 09:40 PM (23 replies)
Last modified by Just Me on Mar-05-04 06:26 PM
Blair promises 'relentless' war on terror
Topic started by Thankfully_in_Britain on Mar-05-04 11:24 AM (25 replies)
Last modified by MisterP on Mar-05-04 06:25 PM
Kerry leads Bush in Florida
Topic started by demdem on Mar-05-04 03:06 PM (16 replies)
Last modified by Don Claybrook on Mar-05-04 06:24 PM
Shiites Refuse to Sign Iraq Constitution (The Ayatollah Of Iraq speaks)
Topic started by NNN0LHI on Mar-05-04 01:59 PM (4 replies)
Last modified by alcuno on Mar-05-04 06:23 PM
Thousands Protest in Haiti's Capital in Support of Aristide
Topic started by khephra on Mar-05-04 03:59 PM (13 replies)
Last modified by LSparkle on Mar-05-04 06:12 PM
France Bans Head Scarves In School
Topic started by dArKeR on Mar-04-04 02:37 AM (114 replies)
Last modified by PsychoDad on Mar-05-04 06:05 PM
Venezuela's UN Envoy Quits to Protest Chavez Policies
Topic started by KenLayedOff on Mar-04-04 05:40 PM (90 replies)
Last modified by windansea on Mar-05-04 06:04 PM
'Mortal danger' terrorism warning
Topic started by DoYouEverWonder on Mar-05-04 04:26 PM (7 replies)
Last modified by DoYouEverWonder on Mar-05-04 05:58 PM
White House-CIA Leak Records Sought
Topic started by XanthaS on Mar-05-04 04:42 PM (7 replies)
Last modified by XanthaS on Mar-05-04 05:49 PM
Verdict Is Reached In Martha Stewart Case
Topic started by Moderator on Mar-05-04 02:45 PM (40 replies)
Last modified by ZombyWoof on Mar-05-04 05:42 PM
US army admits killing Iraqi civilians
Topic started by Aidoneus on Mar-05-04 05:25 PM (5 replies)
Last modified by snoochie on Mar-05-04 05:39 PM
U.S. parents angry after student caught at border with pot
Topic started by govegan on Mar-05-04 02:37 PM (7 replies)
Last modified by reprobate on Mar-05-04 05:29 PM
Three Explosions in Iraq, No Injuries
Topic started by Barrett808 on Mar-05-04 05:14 PM (1 replies)
Last modified by leftchick on Mar-05-04 05:25 PM
STOCK MARKET WATCH, Friday 5 March (#1)
Topic started by ozymandius on Mar-05-04 07:46 AM (88 replies)
Last modified by 54anickel on Mar-05-04 05:01 PM
US suspect for Iraq bombings 'is dead'
Topic started by Emillereid on Mar-05-04 02:00 PM (3 replies)
Last modified by xchrom on Mar-05-04 04:51 PM
Haitians hail rebel troops
Topic started by Loonman on Mar-02-04 03:05 PM (78 replies)
Last modified by seemslikeadream on Mar-05-04 04:50 PM
Royal Genes May Win Kerry the White House
Topic started by rodbarnett on Mar-05-04 11:00 AM (25 replies)
Last modified by hippiechick on Mar-05-04 04:49 PM
Victims' Families Press Bush to Pull 9/11 Ads (Bush refuses to pull ads)
Topic started by NNN0LHI on Mar-05-04 01:06 PM (18 replies)
Last modified by DesertedRose on Mar-05-04 04:39 PM
Battle for the White House boils down to select states
Topic started by MaineDem on Mar-04-04 06:28 PM (10 replies)
Last modified by depakote_kid on Mar-05-04 04:34 PM
Five Iraqis killed in Mosul gun fight
Topic started by DoYouEverWonder on Mar-05-04 04:15 PM (0 replies)

CNN Breaking - Delay in signing of Iraq Interim Constitution
Topic started by alg0912 on Mar-05-04 08:46 AM (20 replies)
Last modified by calimary on Mar-05-04 04:08 PM
Blix: Iraq war was illegal
Topic started by Emillereid on Mar-05-04 02:07 PM (4 replies)
Last modified by ignatius on Mar-05-04 03:50 PM
Air Force One phone records subpoenaed
Topic started by Katie on Mar-04-04 11:12 PM (70 replies)
Last modified by TacticalPeak on Mar-05-04 02:20 PM
WP (Pincus): Experts Say U.S. Never Spoke to Source of Tip On Bioweapons
Topic started by kskiska on Mar-04-04 11:13 PM (9 replies)
Last modified by young_at_heart on Mar-05-04 02:11 PM
AP Poll Finds Bush, Kerry Tied in Race
Topic started by Paragon on Mar-04-04 04:09 PM (78 replies)
Last modified by Protagoras on Mar-05-04 01:47 PM
DUPE: Please lock
Topic started by kiahzero on Mar-05-04 01:38 PM (5 replies)
Last modified by Crisco on Mar-05-04 01:42 PM
Kennedy: Tenet Must Come Clean on War
Topic started by khephra on Mar-05-04 11:47 AM (4 replies)
Last modified by Just Me on Mar-05-04 01:13 PM
US oil prices rise, supply falls during Bush years
Topic started by NNN0LHI on Mar-05-04 12:09 PM (9 replies)
Last modified by zbdent on Mar-05-04 01:09 PM
Iraqi Hospitals on Life Support - Babies Dying Because of Shortages
Topic started by Barrett808 on Mar-05-04 12:39 PM (5 replies)
Last modified by enough on Mar-05-04 01:07 PM
US intelligence on Iraqi mobile bioweapons labs was not verified
Topic started by NNN0LHI on Mar-05-04 07:49 AM (7 replies)
Last modified by Barrett808 on Mar-05-04 12:39 PM
THE SITUATION IN HAITI -- (Senate - March 04, 2004)Harkin
Topic started by seemslikeadream on Mar-05-04 09:55 AM (6 replies)
Last modified by JudiLyn on Mar-05-04 12:16 PM
Kennedy Calls for CIA Director to Come Clean With Congress (Iraq lies)
Topic started by papau on Mar-05-04 11:51 AM (1 replies)
Last modified by Moderator on Mar-05-04 11:55 AM
Bush Says Kerry Would Take Away Tax Cut (For the weathy)
Topic started by NNN0LHI on Mar-05-04 08:22 AM (13 replies)
Last modified by plcdude on Mar-05-04 11:45 AM
Oil hits one-year high of $37
Topic started by kysrsoze on Mar-05-04 09:56 AM (4 replies)
Last modified by bushisanidiot on Mar-05-04 11:14 AM
Iraqi Constitution Signing Delayed
Topic started by InformedSource on Mar-05-04 11:00 AM (1 replies)
Last modified by lazarus on Mar-05-04 11:03 AM
Louisiana congressman considering switch to GOP
Topic started by tobius on Mar-05-04 01:41 AM (17 replies)
Last modified by lancdem on Mar-05-04 10:27 AM
Air Force One phone records-Dupe, mods please lock
Topic started by TacticalPeak on Mar-05-04 09:39 AM (6 replies)
Last modified by TacticalPeak on Mar-05-04 09:51 AM
Ban rebounds on Bush as gay couples flock to wed
Topic started by JoFerret on Mar-04-04 10:12 PM (15 replies)
Last modified by EV1Ltimm on Mar-05-04 09:20 AM
US Says Aristide Exit a Lesson for Failed Leaders
Topic started by eablair3 on Mar-04-04 09:13 PM (45 replies)
Last modified by kitkatrose on Mar-05-04 09:18 AM
Consumer Confidence Rebounds Over the Past Month
Topic started by tobius on Mar-05-04 06:48 AM (7 replies)
Last modified by BareKnuckledLiberal on Mar-05-04 09:00 AM
Distracted by Haiti, U.S. ignores Venezuela - People preparing for civil w
Topic started by Tinoire on Mar-02-04 04:12 AM (53 replies)
Last modified by jmcgowanjm on Mar-05-04 08:39 AM
Bush Capitalizes On Travel Bargain
Topic started by kskiska on Mar-04-04 11:16 PM (9 replies)
Last modified by salin on Mar-05-04 08:20 AM
Polls: World Not Pleased With Bush
Topic started by dArKeR on Mar-04-04 10:39 PM (21 replies)
Last modified by DeepModem Mom on Mar-05-04 08:19 AM
German court overturns world's only 9/11 conviction - Globe and Mail
Topic started by Screaming Lord Byron on Mar-04-04 09:02 AM (14 replies)
Last modified by MrBenchley on Mar-05-04 07:59 AM
Families of WTC victims angered at Bush campaign ads (Exploiting the dead)
Topic started by NNN0LHI on Mar-04-04 07:26 AM (110 replies)
Last modified by libview on Mar-05-04 07:49 AM
Iran meets Iraq over oil pipeline
Topic started by DoYouEverWonder on Mar-05-04 07:27 AM (3 replies)
Last modified by DoYouEverWonder on Mar-05-04 07:47 AM
America chasing Osama 24/7
Topic started by lojasmo on Mar-04-04 11:59 PM (12 replies)
Last modified by Spentastic on Mar-05-04 06:53 AM
US faces mounting international fury over Aristide's 'forced' exit
Topic started by Say_What on Mar-04-04 11:22 PM (30 replies)
Last modified by Nihil on Mar-05-04 06:14 AM
Large explosion heard in Baghdad
Topic started by DuctapeFatwa on Mar-05-04 01:58 AM (9 replies)
Last modified by leftchick on Mar-05-04 06:12 AM
Iraqi Casualties Unlikely to Hurt Bush Election
Topic started by Paragon on Mar-04-04 04:03 PM (22 replies)
Last modified by saigon68 on Mar-05-04 04:22 AM
US knew of Iraqi attacks
Topic started by dArKeR on Mar-03-04 09:16 PM (20 replies)
Last modified by Zhade on Mar-05-04 04:21 AM
Bush Campaign Defends Ads With 9 / 11 Images
Topic started by khephra on Mar-04-04 09:04 AM (65 replies)
Last modified by truthisfreedom on Mar-05-04 02:17 AM
New Search for Bin Laden Begins...
Topic started by theshadow on Mar-04-04 09:14 PM (12 replies)
Last modified by SMIRKY_W_BINLADEN on Mar-05-04 02:03 AM
US recruits guards for Iraq in Chile
Topic started by JoFerret on Mar-04-04 10:10 PM (5 replies)
Last modified by Voltaire99 on Mar-05-04 01:47 AM
HUGE development in Plame case: subpoena widened to Air Force One calls
Topic started by AngryYoungMan on Mar-05-04 01:00 AM (5 replies)
Last modified by lazarus on Mar-05-04 01:08 AM
September 11 families disgusted by Bush campaign ads
Topic started by The Sushi Bandit on Mar-04-04 06:53 PM (8 replies)
Last modified by lazarus on Mar-05-04 01:04 AM
Blix: Iraq war was illegal
Topic started by DoYouEverWonder on Mar-04-04 10:58 PM (3 replies)
Last modified by The_Casual_Observer on Mar-04-04 11:48 PM
CAR sore about Aristide snub
Topic started by Tinoire on Mar-03-04 03:02 PM (34 replies)
Last modified by Say_What on Mar-04-04 11:45 PM
Two versions of Aristide exile
Topic started by windansea on Mar-02-04 01:45 PM (111 replies)
Last modified by struggle4progress on Mar-04-04 11:33 PM
Ex-Minister Short Blasts Blair on Iraq 'Deceit'
Topic started by Barrett808 on Mar-04-04 01:56 PM (5 replies)
Last modified by JoFerret on Mar-04-04 11:27 PM
Resolution violation did not make Iraq war legal - Blix
Topic started by JoFerret on Mar-04-04 10:39 PM (5 replies)
Last modified by leesa on Mar-04-04 11:18 PM
Russian Experts Reportedly Gave Iraq Missile Aid
Topic started by kskiska on Mar-04-04 10:54 PM (1 replies)
Last modified by rooboy on Mar-04-04 11:05 PM
Dem Now - Aristide confirms to Maxine Waters that he was kidnapped
Topic started by eablair3 on Mar-01-04 09:47 AM (167 replies)
Last modified by struggle4progress on Mar-04-04 11:01 PM
Deadly Iraqi attacks can't be stopped - US
Topic started by dArKeR on Mar-04-04 10:33 PM (1 replies)
Last modified by DuctapeFatwa on Mar-04-04 10:45 PM
Military Medics to Replace Civilian Peers in Iraq/Philipppines--New WMW
Topic started by Gloria on Mar-04-04 10:33 PM (0 replies)

Bush Administration Worried About Gasoline Prices
Topic started by twilight on Mar-04-04 12:03 PM (36 replies)
Last modified by ledyardj on Mar-04-04 09:40 PM
Kerry VP talk includes a Clinton (Nit-Picklering!)
Topic started by voted4wellstone on Mar-04-04 05:47 PM (18 replies)
Last modified by ronnykmarshall on Mar-04-04 09:39 PM
US fruitcakes take Afghanistan by storm, military says
Topic started by dArKeR on Mar-04-04 01:06 AM (31 replies)
Last modified by Buns_of_Fire on Mar-04-04 09:30 PM
(Bush) Avoiding attacking suspected terrorist mastermind (MSNBC)
Topic started by joeunderdog on Mar-02-04 07:46 PM (37 replies)
Last modified by Just Me on Mar-04-04 09:16 PM
Lieberman Calls for Kerry, Bush Restraint
Topic started by peterh on Mar-04-04 03:02 PM (52 replies)
Last modified by Disturbed on Mar-04-04 08:31 PM
Fed Says Economy Continuing to Expand
Topic started by leftchick on Mar-03-04 02:21 PM (29 replies)
Last modified by newyawker99 on Mar-04-04 07:08 PM

Your self-righteousness does not jibe with the facts. Again.

[sangh0]

4. That's it?

Apathetic DUers

[WilliamPitt]

6. Right?

Shame on us.

[displacedtexan]

11. Many of us are suffering from armchair battle fatigue...

which is why we must remain ever alert!
BushCo knows exactly how to time events. Right now, they are well aware of our fatigue, and they will soften the public just enough so that, when the next big orange alert hoax is perpetrated, we'll forget Iraq completely. Then, they will bring the troops home, and we'll all cheer.

Now is the time for an all-out protest! Let's ruin their schedule and put them on the defensive!

[Qanisqineq]

5. I still feel the same way

My husband is coming to the end of his 10 month deployment to Iraq. He is even angrier now about the situation than he was before the U.S. invaded. He sees what is really going on and is disgusted. I, though I still feel the same, am emotionally drained and tired. I am tired of being called "unpatriotic" for speaking out against the war or against Bush.

That's just my two cents.

[enough]

9. This post puzzles me.

It seems to me that many on DU are EXTREMELY concerned about what is happening in Iraq and about the lies and iniquities that led up to it and still continue, about the hideous human toll on Iraqis and Americans, and about the wider world situation that allowed this to happen.

I'm not sure what you would want to be seeing here that you are not seeing.

[revcarol]

22. A CANDIDATE who is" extremely concerned about what is happening in Iraq

and about the lies...and the toll...??????"Kerry just seems to blow off any questions about the OCCUPATION WAR, except to say that the National Guard and Reserves ought to come home and be replaced by (40,000?) regular troops.

He is wise to blame Tenet, who knows where the bodies are buried.But the rest of it, phooey.

Edit: Nuthin' about corrupt contracts in Iraq(will he honor those contracts, can we buy them out?), nuthin' about returning privatized(stolen) businesses and assets to Iraqis, nuthin' about reparations ot innocent Iraqi civilians...so are we to assume that EVERYTHING IS A OK, ACCORDING TO WHAT HE DOESN'T DEIGN TO COMMENT ON?

[WilliamPitt]

27. The 40,000 troops canard

He never said he would send 40,000 troops. He is basically advocating enlarging the armed forces by four divisions. We have ten now, and they have been badly abused, to the point that many will not re-enlist. Unless you want to live in a country with a badly depleted defense, we're going to need those extra divisions just to fill the holes.

Regardless, he never said anything about sending 40,000 troops to Iraq. Ther are already 125,000 troops there.

[sangh0]

30. She knows that.

Telling her again won't stop her from repeating it

[revcarol]

53. I know that he wants to add two divisions,,,

and he wants to replace the Nat'l Guard and Reserves with regular troops, so don't call it a canard.The point is:IF WE DO NOT REMAIN IN IRAQ AS OCCUPIERS, WE DO NOT NEED TO ADD 40,000 TROOPS.The military will NOT be stretched so thin.

Got it now, Will?????????Nice try, though.

[sangha]

57. Like I said, she'll keep repeating it

Kerry does NOT want to send 40,000 more troops to Iraq. Some of the troops bein sent to Iraq now are being drawn from the troops we have stationed in other dangerous placesm like Germany and Japan. He wants the additional 40,000 to replace those troops in Germany, etc...NOT IRAQ.

And the military is stretched thin right now. More than 60% of our active forces are deployed, with a large share of the remaining portion just coming off of active duty.

Your misinformation does nothing to help the credibility of those who oppose the occupation.

[sangh0]

29. Speaking of lies

You know that the 40,000 additional troops are not for Iraq, because I've posted this where you've seen it. They are to be used to replace some of the troops that have been sent to Iraq.

[revcarol]

55. I never said the 40,000 troops would be NEW troops to Iraq

and I don't know what percentage of National Guard and Reserve roops are in Iraq or their numbers.

The fact is: he wants to add 40,000 troops to our military, two divisions of 18,000 troops each and, I guess, 4000 more.Where he would want to use them would be up to him as President.

The second fact is: the ONLY reason we would need to add 40,000 troops TO THE MILITARY is THE CONTINUED OCCUPATION OF IRAQ.Without that, we would only have to replace those who are not enlisting or re-enlisting, and NOT add to the total authorized troop level.

[sangha]

58. You said

"Kerry just seems to blow off any questions about the OCCUPATION WAR, except to say that the National Guard and Reserves ought to come home and be replaced by (40,000?) regular troops."

If the troops are replacing troops in Iraq as you said (which they are NOT) then they would be in Iraq. They are not replacing troops in Iraq. They will be sent to OTHER countries to replace the troops that are being sent to Iraq from those OTHER countries.

[CTLawGuy]

39. when our horse

voted for it, we had to reconcile the discrepancy somehow.

Kerry = Iraq yes

Iraq yes = bad

Kerry = bad????

Kerry = good

therefore

Iraq yes = good.

[tobius]

41. Bingo. Bullseye.

Partisans on all sides lose credibility with the general population when they sense the inconsistency of reflexive defense or attack.

[Guaranteed]

44. LOL

That's great...:)

[Vladimir]

48. alternatively

Kerry = Iraq yes

Iraq yes = bad

ergo one issue does not a president make.

V

[Guaranteed]

50. It sure made Bush bad, in my eyes. nt

[Vladimir]

52. yeah but

if everything at home was peachy, his approval ratings would still be great. My point was that Iraq is only one facet of the Bush presidency and the Kerry challenge to it.

V

[madfloridian]

66. A lot hinges on that *one issue*, though.

Our nation's credibility, our conduct toward other nations in the future, which country is next? Big issue. Very big issue.

[Vladimir]

68. Yeah I know mate

I know, I know... I want on the bleeding marches, hell I did a little bit to help promote them even... I've screamed my head off about this to anyone who would listen. But all I was trying to say is that if you believe the war was illegal (I do) and know that Kerry voted for it, it doesn't follow that Kerry would be a bad president. And if you like Kerry, it certainly doesn't follow that you have to accept Iraq was good.

As it happens I like neither Kerry nor Iraq. But I hate Bush, so Kerry it is.

V

[madfloridian]

70. I have posted 3 times here how I will vote.

I will vote for the nominee, but I will support financially the candidates I believe in....and the causes they espouse.

I don't think Kerry would be a bad president. I do think he believes in pre-emptive war. I think he should clarify if he does not so I won't believe that way.

[Vladimir]

71. Well then

we have the same position... or would if I was American and could vote.

sorry, didn't mean to be antagonistic.

V

[madfloridian]

72. You weren't.

Yes, I do think our position is the same.
:hi:

[Lexingtonian]

46. It's not that easy

It's just that everyone is watching the slow motion train wreck of the present Iraq and has nothing new left to say. Creating a functional and desirable Iraqi government was always the principal problem, the Bushies never found the people or approach it took to achieve that, and what is happening is perfectly predictable in the region- a slowly building civil war and anarchy, followed by military rule.

No one knows what the GIs and Iraqis who are getting killed are dying for other than the vainglory of the Bush Administration. Just because we don't know doesn't mean there isn't a reason that the future will yield up. But there is only so much idle speculation on the subject that can be put into the mainstream media- in the absence of evidence, people prefer in such matters to stick to their pieties about it rather than embrace the half-baked guesses of unproven pundits.

A lot of the purist talk about Iraq lasted as long as it did because it was useful in domestic politics as a cudgel. The Iraqi people have no consensus about the matter- dictators tend to kill and impoverish their subjects, the American invasion/occupation probably just did in one year what Saddam would have in three or five.

So there is no celebrating/mongering the moral high ground now. The moral high ground is in doing something about the present conditions but all efforts are hostage to miserly Republican Congressfolk, local terrorists and guerillas, and the Bush Administration's effort to win the next elections.

[Vladimir]

49. I am not sure about that

In the US its obious why the talk has gone down - Kerry's nomination has taken it off the agenda. Elsewhere, like Britain, it is still very much on the agenda, and may be one of the defining issues of the next General Election. Labour has already lost a seat in Parliament on this issue alone. Its difficult though... sometimes flanking is the best form of attack. Instead of driving on about Iraq, use other issues to get the bastard(s) responsible out of office.

You are of course right about the media... but then what did we expect? The BBC has been neutered as well, by Hutton, and that is something that we will all feel the effects of over the coming years.

V

[sangha]

59. True, but Englands Parliament is controlled by the Republicans

In the US, part of the reason why the furor has died down is that the Repukes own Congress and the DOJ so there will be no real investigation. In England, Blair's lies are being investigated.

[Vladimir]

69. I wish

In England, Blair's lies are being investigated.

Yeah, by an 'independant' committee with not a single opposition MP on it. Blair has the verdict sewn up.

England's parliament is controlled by Blair, btw. The reason there is an inquiry of sorts is largely because the public keeps banging on about it, and because the Lib Dems (who have about 10% in Parliament I think) do too. And as I said, in a by-election, Blair's govt. has already lost a VERY safe seat indeed to this issue alone.

My point was (god i'm incoherent today, sorry), the way to be anti war today is to not only scream about it (and god knows I've done enough of that to lose my voice over the last year), but to play hard to get Bush out too.

V

[sangha]

73. That's true

but at least there's an investigation for the media to report on. Here, the investigation is looking into the mistakes the intel agencies made, and will not look at how the admin misused the info.

Also, the parliamentary system is more amenable to opposition within the party's ranks than our two-party system. It's harder to break ranks in the US. If you piss off the Democratic Party, where ya gonna go to, the Greens?

Though England also seems to have only two major parties, it seems to me (as an American) that third-parties in the UK are stronger than they are in the US, and in England, they have more representation in Parliament, though as an American I might be misperceiving the situation.

[Vladimir]

77. No, you are largely right

it is easier here. But on the other hand its harder, because in the upcoming election, what exactly does a progressive do? Its gonna be an interesting 12 months...

V

[ScreamingMeemie]

51. Still crying here. This is/was my biggest problem. The one that

makes me wish I was a Senator. Because I knew that with that vote in his hot little hand, Bush was going to move forward. This is why I have trouble with the justification of a war vote. I would feel better with an admission of mistake,instead of acting as if duped. I will vote Democratic come November because anything is better than Bush, but I will always feel that we could have done better...that we should have remained true. :hi:

[revcarol]

54. Senator Kennedy had a great speech last night on C-Span

to the Council on Foreign Relations. HE DOCUMENTED BY DATE AND PERSON HOW THE SENATE WAS DECEIVED, AND HOW THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WERE DECEIVED.
So, I, at least am ready to let Kerry off the hook for voting for the war (he was stupid, but not unforgivably so.He should have known the President would lie on any and every issue.)SO WHAT'S HE GOING TO DO WITH THE SITUATION WHEN HE IS PRESIDENT??

So far, all he has said is "Replace the National Guard and Reserves with regular troops. Continue the occupation." THRILL, THRILL. more same-o, same-o.

[sangha]

60. Keep repeating those inaccuracies

Kerry has not said "Continue the occupation." He wants the UN to take it over

[revcarol]

63. He came around to the KOOCH'S POSITION?

THAT'S WONDERFUL AND NEWS TO ME...

But the devil will be in the details: 1) Will the U. S. still be "in charge?" If so, our men and women will still be killed.
2) Does he propose to reverse all the contracts awarded under Bush? If not, American will still be targets.
3) Will he restore "privatized"(stolen) businesses to Iraqis?
4) Will he provide compensation to families of innocent civilians killed, wounded, houses smashed, taxicabs run over by tanks, etc?
5) Will he de-privatize the running of the oil fields(they did it themselves for years) and let the Iraqis run their own oil industry?

Really, that's wonderful news for Americans and Iraqis. But only if the UN is IN CHARGE and if we try to make good on the damage we have caused.

EDIT: (WISH I COULD PUT THIS IN RED!!)If Kerry's newfound plan includes removing 95% of our troops and having the only other Americans be non-religious humanitarian aid workers, HOORAY!!

[sangha]

75. Answers

1) No. If the UN is in charge then the UN is in charge, and the US is not. However, I'd like to point out that this is Kerry's intentions. No one can predict if he, or anyone else, would be able to pull it off.

2) Contracts can't be arbitrarily retracted. Contracts are legally binding, even ones our govt enters into. Kerry has spoken out about the war profiteering by Halliburton and other Bush* connected corps, but the response you'd like to see (ie cancellation of the contracts) is easier said than done.

3) I'm not sure what you mean by that. Are you referring to private property that Saddam confiscated? If so, I'm guessing (as far as I know, no candidate has discussed this) that that would be up to the Iraqi people once they have their sovereignity back.

4) Are you talking about reparations for collateral damages? If so, AFAIK, no one has been speaking of this, but as a general rule, the aid we give to nations that have been occupied is usually considered adequate as compensation for collateral damages.

5) I'm not sure what you mean by "de-privatize" but Kerry has spoken of Iraqi oil as a part of the Iraqi people's heritage meant to benefit the Iraqi people as a whole.

EDIT: (WISH I COULD PUT THIS IN RED!!)If Kerry's newfound plan includes removing 95% of our troops and having the only other Americans be non-religious humanitarian aid workers, HOORAY!!

AFAIK, no one has said anything about exactly what percentage of the UN troops in Iraq would be US soldiers. Also, the US cannot prohibit religious aid workers from going to Iraq. They can only refuse to subsidize them.

on edit: IMO it's unrealistic to think that any candidate is going to meet 100% of your desires. It's one thing to want a candidate to reduce our involvement in Iraq, but it's another to specify in such detail exactly what you want to see.

[IndianaGreen]

76. Iraqi contracts are in violation of international law, they are voidable!

The contracts were signed by an aggressor nation in the role of hostile occupier of a sovereign nation. Under international law, the Iraqi contracts are voidable.

Replacing Halliburton with another American corporation, on the basis of its campaign contributions to the Democratic Party, won't do.

The US must end its occupation at once!

[sangha]

79. They may be voidable

but POTUS can't cancel them arbitrarily. In order to cancel them due to their being illegal, the govt would have to show that they are illegal. That's not easy, and it's certainly not quick.

[IndianaGreen]

82. The United States is an unlawful occupying power, as Iraq was in Kuwait

THE OCCUPATION OF IRAQ: WHAT INTERNATIONAL LAW REQUIRES NOW
Professor Mary Ellen O'Connell
Moritz School of Law, Ohio State University
JURIST Guest Columnist

International law generally requires that a state using force unlawfully should pay reparations for the damage caused. Iraq has paid billions of dollars to Kuwait and others for its unlawful invasion in 1990. The same rule requires the US, UK and other members of the coalition to pay for the damage they have caused in Iraq.

Neither the UN nor the International Financial Institutions have assisted Iraq in paying for its unlawful action. They are governed by the same principles with respect to the coalition. The UN currently controls Iraqi oil revenues. Given the widely-held conclusion that the invasion was unlawful, the better approach for the UN is not to turn control of Iraqi revenues over to the occupants. Oil revenues may be spent for immediate humanitarian assistance, distributed through neutral channels. Any Iraqi revenues beyond those needed for basic humanitarian assistance, should be conserved by the UN for the future. At the point when it is clear that Iraqis have created their own government and the occupiers have left, Iraqi resources may be turned over to Iraq. The same is true of Iraqi assets outside the country. The example of Kuwait following the Iraqi invasion provides a recent precedent.

The example of Kuwait also shows that an unlawful belligerent occupant has no legal authority to make international agreements for Iraq on debts or any other matters. International law requires that such agreements be treated as nullities. Similarly, no representative of an Iraqi occupation regime can have a seat in the UN or other international organizations.

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew107.php

[ScreamingMeemie]

62. The american people (at least a lot that I know) were not deceived.

As I stated, I knew (or had a good idea)what was going to happen. If those who voted for it were to stop hiding behind the cloak of being deceived and admit that they were wrong I'd feel better. There was no shock and awe there. But I am willing to get over it. I'll be voting Dem in November, yet I can still hold an opinion.

:hi:

[revcarol]

64. I wasn't deceived, and one dead American is too many!!

But Kennedy made the point that from the minute the administration took office, he was determined to go to war(thanks, O' Neil!!) and THAT is on the PRESIDENT'S HEAD.

I listened to Blix and Scott Ritter, and most of the European governments. So did most of us here. But the BLOOD of Iraqis and Americans and Poles and Brits is on BUSH'S HANDS.

[IndianaGreen]

67. Bush and the GOP are not the only ones with blood on their hands

Or are we forgetting Clinton and his embargo that took the lives of half a million Iraqi children and his bombing of the illegal "no-fly" zones which was nothing but a subterfuge to soften Iraq for a future American invasion.

[sangha]

81. Clinton isn't running in this election

so blame him all you want

[IndianaGreen]

65. The US invasion and occupation of Iraq is wrong and evil!

It was wrong to attack Iraq, it is wrong to occupy Iraq, and all the political leaders that supported and enabled this war should be condemned!

Murder is always murder and it is always wrong.

Some issues are black and white!

Saturday, 13 July, 2002, 09:42 GMT 10:42 UK
Plan to attack Iraq 'immoral'

The cleric widely tipped to become the next Archbishop of Canterbury has called any attack on Iraq "immoral".

Dr Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Wales, has signed a declaration criticising the West's war on terror and said an assault on Iraq would be "illegal".

The declaration was published in the Roman Catholic weekly paper, The Tablet.

In it, Dr Williams and other signatories, including a Church of England and Catholic bishop, say attacking Iraq would be tantamount to fighting "terror with terror".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2126393.stm

04/01/2003
The hawkish doctrine of Mr Bush
Bryan Hehir

At the start of the New Year, a war led by the United States against Iraq looks probable. A specialist in the Just War principles tests the legitimacy of the projected action – with a negative result.

THE abiding problem of world politics – how to keep peace among sovereign nations – has produced over time a conservative international order. The order is conservative because it is geared towards restraint: force must be endorsed in terms of the UN Charter, save for self-defence; non-military solutions must always be preferred; and force is reserved for exceptional cases.

All three elements are threatened by the foreign policy doctrine which President Bush’s administration has developed since 11 September 2001. The three elements of that doctrine – unilateralism, pre-emption and coercive non-proliferation – are being invoked to justify any future attack on Iraq. Unilateralism has been restrained by the United Nations Security Council, but the restraint could prove to be temporary. If so, pre-emption and intervention are promised as the next steps. But first, what is the Bush “doctrine”? The transcendent term is misleading: the “doctrines” of virtually every American president since Truman amount in reality to a set of responses to specific challenges rather than universal philosophical prescriptions. The Nixon doctrine provided cover for the American retreat from Vietnam; the Carter doctrine responded to the Iranian Revolution and its consequences in the Persian Gulf; the Reagan doctrine was primarily a response to events in Central America. None of these “doctrines” outlived their administrations.

http://www.thetablet.co.uk/cgi-bin/register.cgi/tablet-00697

[revcarol]

78. All I know is that Mar 20, 2005, if ANY Americans are still in Iraq,

IN ANY CAPACITY except humanitarian, I WILL BE MARCHING AGINST THE WHITE HOUSE WITH KERRY IN IT!!

[sangha]

80. Good for you

I fully support anyone who is willing to keep Kerry's feet in the fire after he is elected President. I will be there with you.

[revcarol]

83. OOOOOH - we agree on something.

Now let's go back to fighting about the WTO, medical care,.....:pals:
I certainly intend to keep Kerry's feet to the fire and to elect Democratic progressives to keep him on his toes!!