Story Comments
Posted by: reidgator 1 year, 2 months ago
This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
-
47%
reidgator1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Dionys, you are the one doing the “cherrypicking”!
Reply
In Sept, 2002, Bush announced his plans to invade Iraq and gave his justification for the invasion in his address to the United Nations General Assembly (September 12, 2002): “The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority of the United Nations and a threat to peace. Iraq has answered a decade of U.N. demands with a decade of defiance. All the world now faces a test, and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?”
Note that Bush did NOT use the alleged WMDs to justify the invasion. It was Saddam’s violation of 17 UN resolutions. Resolution 1441 authorized the use of force as of December 7, 2002, the deadline that had been set by the Security Council on November 8, 2002.
Chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix (a Swedish constitutional lawyer) opposed the invasion. But he states in his book (“Disarming Iraq”) that "Saddam failed to meet the requirements of UN Resolution 1441, that he showed his contempt for them in fact, and that they were a legal justification for force."
There was one way for Saddam to stop the invasion. All Saddam had to do was leave Iraq. US forces waited for 48 hours to give him time, but he refused. That was the real reason for the invasion - regime change - and the existence or non-existence of WMDs was secondary.
Also:
"In the 4 years since the inspectors [were kicked out of Iraq], intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001….It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East which, as we know all too well, affects American security.”
Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002 Senate floor before her vote in favor of authorizing the president to go to war in Iraq.
Was Hillary lying? Did Bill Lie? How about Al Gore? Sandy Berger, Madaline Albright, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi?
The TRUTH is this: Those of you accusing Bush of lying are the real liars!-
69%
HannibalBarca1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The Project for the New American Century.
Reply
Click here for other articles on this topic
The People versus the Powerful is the oldest story in human history. At no point in history have the Powerful wielded so much control. At no point in history has the active and informed involvement of the People, all of them, been more absolutely required.
By William Rivers Pitt
02/25/03 -- - The Project for the New American Century, or PNAC, is a Washington-based think tank created in 1997. Above all else, PNAC desires and demands one thing: The establishment of a global American empire to bend the will of all nations. They chafe at the idea that the United States, the last remaining superpower, does not do more by way of economic and military force to bring the rest of the world under the umbrella of a new socio-economic Pax Americana.
The fundamental essence of PNAC's ideology can be found in a White Paper produced in September of 2000 entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century." In it, PNAC outlines what is required of America to create the global empire they envision. According to PNAC, America must:
* Reposition permanently based forces to Southern Europe, Southeast Asia and the Middle East;
* Modernize U.S. forces, including enhancing our fighter aircraft, submarine and surface fleet capabilities;
* Develop and deploy a global missile defense system, and develop a strategic dominance of space;
* Control the "International Commons" of cyberspace;
* Increase defense spending to a minimum of 3.8 percent of gross domestic product, up from the 3 percent currently spent.
Most ominously, this PNAC document described four "Core Missions" for the American military. The two central requirements are for American forces to "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars," and to "perform the 'constabulary' duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions." Note well that PNAC does not want America to be prepared to fight simultaneous major wars. That is old school. In order to bring this plan to fruition, the military must fight these wars one way or the other to establish American dominance for all to see.
Why is this important? After all, wacky think tanks are a cottage industry in Washington, DC. They are a dime a dozen. In what way does PNAC stand above the other groups that would set American foreign policy if they could? Two events brought PNAC into the mainstream of American government: the disputed election of George W. Bush, and the attacks of September 11th. When Bush assumed the Presidency, the men who created and nurtured the imperial dreams of PNAC became the men who run the Pentagon, the Defense Department and the White House. When the Towers came down, these men saw, at long last, their chance to turn their White Papers into substantive policy.-
69%
HannibalBarca1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Vice President Dick Cheney is a founding member of PNAC, along with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz is the ideological father of the group. Bruce Jackson, a PNAC director, served as a Pentagon official for Ronald Reagan before leaving government service to take a leading position with the weapons manufacturer Lockheed Martin.
Reply
PNAC is staffed by men who previously served with groups like Friends of the Democratic Center in Central America, which supported America's bloody gamesmanship in Nicaragua and El Salvador, and with groups like The Committee for the Present Danger, which spent years advocating that a nuclear war with the Soviet Union was "winnable."
PNAC has recently given birth to a new group, The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, which met with National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice in order to formulate a plan to "educate" the American populace about the need for war in Iraq. CLI has funneled millions of taxpayer dollars to support the Iraqi National Congress and the Iraqi heir presumptive, Ahmed Chalabi. Chalabi was sentenced in absentia by a Jordanian court in 1992 to
22 years in prison for bank fraud after the collapse of Petra Bank, which he founded in 1977. Chalabi has not set foot in Iraq since 1956, but his Enron-like business credentials apparently make him a good match for the Bush administration's plans.
PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses" report is the institutionalization of plans and ideologies that have been formulated for decades by the men currently running American government. The PNAC Statement of Principles is signed by Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld, as well as by Eliot Abrams, Jeb Bush, Bush's special envoy to Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad, and many others. William Kristol, famed conservative writer for the Weekly Standard, is also a co-founder of the group. The Weekly Standard is owned by Ruppert Murdoch, who also owns international media giant Fox News.
The desire for these freshly empowered PNAC men to extend American hegemony by force of arms across the globe has been there since day one of the Bush administration, and is in no small part a central reason for the Florida electoral battle in 2000. Note that while many have said that Gore and Bush are ideologically identical, Mr. Gore had no ties whatsoever to the fellows at PNAC. George W. Bush had to win that election by any means necessary, and PNAC signatory Jeb Bush was in the perfect position to ensure the rise to prominence of his fellow imperialists. Desire for such action, however, is by no means translatable into workable policy. Americans enjoy their comforts, but don't cotton to the idea of being some sort of Neo-Rome.-
69%
HannibalBarca1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
On September 11th, the fellows from PNAC saw a door of opportunity open wide before them, and stormed right through it.
Reply
Bush released on September 20th 2001 the "National Security Strategy of the United States of America." It is an ideological match to PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses" report issued a year earlier. In many places, it uses exactly the same language to describe America's new place in the world.
Recall that PNAC demanded an increase in defense spending to at least 3.8% of GDP. Bush's proposed budget for next year asks for $379 billion in defense spending, almost exactly 3.8% of GDP. -
69%
HannibalBarca1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
On September 11th, the fellows from PNAC saw a door of opportunity open wide before them, and stormed right through it.
Reply
Bush released on September 20th 2001 the "National Security Strategy of the United States of America." It is an ideological match to PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses" report issued a year earlier. In many places, it uses exactly the same language to describe America's new place in the world.
Recall that PNAC demanded an increase in defense spending to at least 3.8% of GDP. Bush's proposed budget for next year asks for $379 billion in defense spending, almost exactly 3.8% of GDP.-
-
-
-
-
100%
_-m-_1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Sigh.
Reply
Talk about a gift for blurring the line between opinion and fact.
In your opinion you don't lend it credence.
Stating that you hold a given opinion makes for an amazingly weak, and completely pointless fact, since it isn't any stronger than the opinion to which it refers.
It certainly doesn't qualify as a fact that would counter any of what Hannibal just posted, which is documentable, as both of his references are a matter of public record.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
71%
hyperbola1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well Redi, even the Republican House Majority Leader of the time, Dick Armey, says Bushie and the zioncons lied to americans, the congress and the world to get their war for oil and israel in iraq.
Reply
You should take time out from the sect and begin to educate yourself. Then you can begin to act like an American patriot instead of goosestepping.
Conservative: Are Bush/Cheney Offenses Impeachable?
Have President Bush and Vice President Richard Cheney committed impeachable offenses for which they should be convicted and removed from office by duping then-House Majority Leader Richard K. Armey into supporting legislation authorizing war against Iraq with twin lies -- that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had personal ties to Osama bin Laden's terrorist network; and that Saddam had miniaturized nuclear weapons, which could be unleashed by employing al Qaeda as a delivery system?
.... After discovering the truth, Mr. Armey lamented he could probably have prevented the Iraqi war debacle: "Had I known or believed then what I believe I know now, I would have publicly opposed the resolution right to the bitter end, and I believe I might have stopped it from happening, and I believe I would have done a better service to my country had I done so."
...Mr. Armey should be summoned to testify under oath before the House Judiciary Committee about his statements in "Angler" implicating Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney in lies to dupe the House of Representatives over war in Iraq. The president and vice president should be given an opportunity to respond under oath but subject to cross-examination.
If the totality of evidence corroborates Mr. Armey's recollection, shouldn't the House immediately vote to impeach Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney and send their cases for trials in the Senate? Wouldn't that action honor the original intent of the Founding Fathers that the Bush administration professes to cherish?
http://www.propeller.com/story/2008/09/24/conserva...
-
loading ...
PinkyPie
amazed
CactusAnnie
capecoralM
protoham
Sludge-Guzzler
Dicax_Maximus
DropkickaLib
Nixie
krystaleahs
Engnr
Ciera-Marie
bonaroo
rumple4skin
cleare
ForrestPhelps
hamy
Dionys
mesodude
kobzikov
PsychoHosebeast
DenCuddy
TFL
Post Reply
You are not signed in to Propeller.com. Please sign in to post a reply.