"I'm not sure which planet they live on"
While Wesley Clark stumps for War on Public Radio’s darling station WBUR
, “Hawks in the Bush administration may be making deadly miscalculations
on Iraq, says Gen. Anthony Zinni, Bush's Middle East envoy.” To answer Zinni’s question: they’re certainly NOT living on planet “accidental armageddon”
, or planet “C.I.A. Warns That a U.S. Attack May Ignite Terror”
or planet "Butler Fears Israel could Use Nukes"
. I’d say they’re on planet Shifting rationals for war
, planet Pax Americana
, planet “Bullish on War”
, planet “G.I.Joe’s Forward Command Post”
, planet “Universal US Draft”
, planet “Blanket immunity for US”
and when they’re not thinking about war, they go to planet “upward wealth transfer”
and also hang out sometimes at planet “genetically targeted weapons as politically usefull tools and perception reengineering via nanobots, psychedelic drugs and valium”
But they stay far away from planet “Origins of Fascism in the US”
. And they hang garlic on their beds to ward off planet "Is Bush a commie mole trying to destroy capitalism?"
from the Krugman
posted by troutfishing
on Oct 17, 2002 -
Is it all about oil?
Iraq war protesters insist a war wil be about oil. Others say no. Here the writer argues that it is both--it is not all about oil but we will control the oil should we take control.
posted by Postroad
on Oct 16, 2002 -
Elephant in the living room: A radical Islamic Nuclear Pakistan
(NYT reg. : name-metafilter password-metafilter) "Hard-line Islamic parties did unexpectedly well in Pakistan's election last week, and Pervez Musharraf's hold on power may be slipping. Do I need to point out that Pakistan is a lot bigger than Iraq, and already has nuclear weapons?...These guys [Bush Adm]want to fight a conventional war; since Al Qaeda won't oblige, they'll attack someone else who will [Iraq]. And watching from the alley, the terrorists are pleased. " -Paul Krugman, once again forced to state the obvious; the US is, effectively, helping with Al Qaeda's goal of radicalizing Islamic populations. In parts of Pakistan, they call Musharaff "Busharaff", and Nick Kristoff notes
"Even in Kuwait, where Yankees have the best possible claim on Arab gratitude, a significant minority of men and women regard us as worms" and that "The most common name given to Pakistani boys born after 9/11 in Pakistan's Northwest Frontier Province reportedly was Osama." What does this have to do with a war in Iraq? Well.........
posted by troutfishing
on Oct 15, 2002 -
“President Bush’s case against Saddam Hussein ... relied on a slanted
and sometimes entirely false reading of the available US intelligence, government officials and analysts claimed yesterday.” Another article on the same subject says, “Rumsfeld’s recent remark that the United States has ‘bulletproof’ evidence of links between Al Qaeda and Hussein struck many in the intelligence community as an exaggerated
assessment of the available evidence.” One paper explains the differences this way, “The C.I.A. has to maintain its credibility
for objective estimates. The White House is mobilizing the public and preparing foreign nations for a potential American invasion of Iraq.”
posted by raaka
on Oct 12, 2002 -
And so it is.
At approximately 1:20 a.m., the Senate passed S.J. Res 45, a resolution authorizing the use of military force against Iraq. The vote: 77 yea, 23 nay. Some surprising yeas, including Clinton and Daschle. What happens next?
posted by damn yankee
on Oct 10, 2002 -
Army for sale!
Russia will back the US in it's Iraq campaign only in exchange for money. Didn't they used to be a superpower? Now they are the A-Team?
posted by wolfgangnorton
on Oct 9, 2002 -
Before we go to war based on whether or not Saddam (or the UN Security Council...) agrees to the Bush administration's proposed UN resolution, would anyone care to discuss what their proposed resolution actually says?
Apparently, the text of the resolution isn't in the public domain
... but things leak. According to this article
, the resolution allows the UN or its members (including the US) to station armed guards in Iraq, establish no-fly and no-drive zones, and create exclusive ground and air transit corridors. Robert Fisk, one of England's most respected reporters, believes the resolution is a poison pill
, designed to lead to "regime change", whether he accepts it or not. So, what else do we know about the proposed resolution, and why isn't anyone talking about it?
posted by insomnia_lj
on Oct 9, 2002 -
A Left-wing European human-rights activist's take on Iraq.
No, not what you'd come to expect by now. Far from the pro-forma accepted perspective of the Left, Thomas von der Osten-Sacken, a German human rights activist makes a case for
the war in Iraq in this insightful interview. He mentions plenty of things I haven't read about before in regards to Kurds and has quite a few strong words to say about Germany and the recent fashions of the European Left.
posted by bokononito
on Oct 7, 2002 -
The Push For War (by Anatol Lieven).
"The most surprising thing about the Bush Administration's plan to invade Iraq is not that it is destructive of international order; or wicked, when we consider the role the US (and Britain) have played, and continue to play, in the Middle East; or opposed by the great majority of the international community; or seemingly contrary to some of the basic needs of the war against terrorism. It is all of these things, but they are of no great concern to the hardline nationalists in the Administration....The most surprising thing about the push for war is that it is so profoundly reckless....What we see now is the tragedy of a great country, with noble impulses, successful institutions, magnificent historical achievements and immense energies, which has become a menace to itself and to mankind."
Excecutive summary: Lord Acton
foretold all fruit of "military superiority".
posted by fold_and_mutilate
on Oct 4, 2002 -
A story of village life
A witty analogy for the current world situation. Here
is another one. If anyone has a good justification for war I would like to hear it, come on convince me!
posted by cohiba
on Oct 1, 2002 -
U.S. helped Iraq start bioweapons program
"I don't think it would be accurate to say the United States government deliberately provided seed stocks to the Iraqis' biological weapons programs,'' said Jonathan Tucker, a former U.N. biological weapons inspector.
"But they did deliver samples that Iraq said had a legitimate public health purpose, which I think was naive to believe, even at the time."
-isn't iraq just another case of blowback
and is anyone asking what the next round of "blowback" will be if we go in again?
posted by specialk420
on Sep 30, 2002 -
Republican Insider Hint #1: Apply foot to mouth and win. America ain't no democracy.
Trent Lott on McDermott
: "For him to be in Baghdad, the center of one of the most dangerous dictators in the world, with all kinds
of weapons of mass destruction, to be questioning the veracity of our own American president
, is the height of irresponsible," said Lott, R-Mississippi. "He needs to come home and keep his mouth shut.
" Yes, yes, we have three traitorous democratic congressmen
in Baghdad presently, who are lobbying that government to allow the return of UN weapons inspectors.
posted by crasspastor
on Sep 29, 2002 -
Agency disavows report on Iraq arms
"The International Atomic Energy Agency says that a report cited by President Bush as evidence that Iraq in 1998 was 'six months away' from developing a nuclear weapon does not exist. 'There's never been a report like that issued from this agency,' Mark Gwozdecky, the IAEA's chief spokesman, said yesterday in a telephone interview from the agency's headquarters in Vienna, Austria."
posted by owillis
on Sep 29, 2002 -
Anyone go to the anti war protest in London today?
The number of the people has been estimated from between 3000 (by the police) to 350,000 (by the organisers
). I reckon 200,000. Either way, its the largest peace protest ever in the country. Me and my friends sign was a great success, with many people commenting on it/photographing it. It was the only black one we saw, so easily stood out. It said 'Its all about the oil' on one side, and on the other there was a picture of Bush looking stupid, and 'No to War'. The protest was peaceful (or was when I left) and on the whole, a success. The only question is, will Bush and Blair take any notice?
posted by Orange Goblin
on Sep 28, 2002 -
How many Saddams are there?
"A German television network said on Thursday it had made a scientific study of 450 photographs of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and concluded there are at least three doubles posing as the Iraqi president."
posted by owillis
on Sep 27, 2002 -
'The guy who tried to kill my dad.'
Setting aside partisan bickering, this description of Saddam Hussein by George W. Bush today sent my mind reeling. Is this in reference to something published in the past that is just escaping my mind? The Reuters
version of the story adds that it is reference to "an Iraqi plot to kill former President George Bush after the 1991 Gulf War." Anyone have a link to that older story?
posted by bclark
on Sep 27, 2002 -
CNNNN: Chaser Non-stop News Network.
This week, the Terrorthon
reveals that Iraq is a bad place. "Last week, President Bush demanded unconditional access for weapons inspectors. And what does Saddam go and do? He gives unconditional access to weapons inspectors. Can you believe the nerve? It was a very aggressive act of compliance. Very provocative compliance. President Bush mustn't take yes for an answer." Must-watch for all Americans...
From the same gang that brings you The Chaser
, which continues dispite problems with its distributor over this story
. Apparently it was in bad taste. I just thought it was funny...
posted by robcorr
on Sep 26, 2002 -
Gore: Saddam must go
Al Gore has told Iraqi opposition politicians that the United States remains committed to the overthrow of President Saddam Hussein. "There can be no peace for the Middle East so long as Saddam is in a position to brutalise his people and threaten his neighbours" - Al Gore [more inside]
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood
on Sep 24, 2002 -
This may not make as effective a sales pitch
as "weapons of mass destruction," but with two oil men in office, it can't be ignored as a possible ulterior motive to war in Iraq. Am I a cynic or should we be asking if this "preemptive" war is really about what they are saying it's about?
posted by karlcleveland
on Sep 23, 2002 -
Is Germany next on the list?
Well, no, but the way the Bush administration approaches diplomacy needs some work. Is a war in Iraq worth "poisoning" America's relationship with the international community?
posted by elwoodwiles
on Sep 23, 2002 -
"ABC News Nightline opened last June 9 with words to make the heart stop. "It is becoming increasingly clear," said a grave Ted Koppel, "that George Bush, operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980s, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam's Iraq into the aggressive power that the United States ultimately had to destroy."
Does it matter if no one reports it? Does a tree falling make a sound if no one hears it? Are these facts not relevant to the war against Iraq? For your debating pleasure, a blast from the past.
posted by nofundy
on Sep 20, 2002 -
When was the last time we bombed Iraq? 1991? 1992? How about 4 days
ago. And again six days before that to name just a few. The US Bombing Watch page
keeps detailed tabs on all bombing attacks by allied forces since March 9, 2000, but the bombing has continued since the end of the Gulf War [via rc3.org
posted by mathowie
on Sep 19, 2002 -
The grayest of gray Republican eminences weigh in on the Iraq Debate. Brent Scowcroft
, an ex-general with the prejudices and proclivities of his scholarly peers --the nattering nabobs of negativism-- proposes that the United States forget about invading Iraq. Henry Kissinger
, one of the great American opportunists, has positioned himself as a kind of stealth critic, a loyal oppositionist who is doing his darnedest to nudge Bush in a multilateral direction. James Baker
, who is intimately tied to a wide range of allegedly satanic forces and has an incredibly long and distinguished record of public service, to chasten George W. Bush's hawkish impulses on Iraq, proposes that the administration sponsor "a simple and straightforward resolution requiring that Iraq submit to intrusive inspections anytime, anywhere, with no exceptions, and authorizing all necessary means to enforce it."
posted by semmi
on Sep 19, 2002 -
This war plan forces me to stand by the dictator who tortured me.
Iraqi writer, an exiled dissident and victim of Hussein's regime speaks against war and sanctions: "You are "either with us or against us", they say. As an Iraqi that means choosing between war and the dictator. To be on the side of the oppressed does not mean we are unaware of the complexity of the situation. To campaign for the lifting of sanctions, for an end to the paralysing bombardment and daily threat of war is to stand by the Iraqi people; it is that policy which will help them to change the oppressive regime. Any change should be initiated from within Iraq, not imposed by Bush or Blair.
posted by talos
on Sep 18, 2002 -
On Iraq, Where Are The Democrats?
"Oh, the party's leaders speak: They appear on talk shows; they write op-eds; they convene congressional hearings. But most of what they say is best understood as highly articulate evasiveness. They have devised a series of formulations designed to make the party appear to be offering a clear response to the president's proposed war, when it is actually doing the opposite.". But now some are willing to outright question
the timing of our newfound desire to eliminate Hussein: "It's hard not to notice that the sudden urgency of war with Iraq has coincided precisely with the emergence of the corporate scandal story, with the flip in the congressional [poll] numbers and with the decline in the Republicans' prospects for retaking the Senate majority"
posted by owillis
on Sep 15, 2002 -
War Could Unshackle Oil in Iraq
..All five permanent members of the Security Council -- the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China -- have international oil companies with major stakes in a change of leadership in Baghdad.
Okay, everybody say it with me now...It's about the OIL!
posted by bas67
on Sep 14, 2002 -