posted on October 20, 2002 07:44:34 PM new
More and more world events are stripping the irrational, dare we say, propagandistic, arguments for why we must RUSH in overthrowing Iraq. The chief fears that the administration seems to be operating from are losing the opportunity for personal revenge and the control of Iraqi oil, and probably Fundamentalist political support. The ones that most of the rest of the world and many of the America people have suspected all along.
We all know that whenever one makes a decision, the more rushed he or she is, the less careful or more flawed the analysis may be, and the more likely that impulse or emotion will dictate the outcome. These figure prominently in strategies of selling, the time and fear factor. This is a strategy that has so far been very successful for the Bush administration, beginning with the so-called election crisis, continuing to the tax-cut, in a somewhat milder form,then frenzied after 9/11, and the Patriot Act, after which a significant number of senators and representives admitted that they weren't even aware of some of the provisions, and now a similar strategy with Iraq. It's been mostly about "sign the contract but don't read it carefully or notice the fine print."
I'll be gone for a while to work on some business that I've undertaken, but I thought that this piece from the WP was worth sharing.
Unequal Opportunity for Tyrants
By Mary McGrory
Sunday, October 20, 2002; Page B07
At a glance it would seem as if the warlords in the White House are as clueless as the frustrated police pursuing the shooter who has been rampaging through Washington's suburbs for the past 21/2 weeks.
George W. Bush, who had been doing a credible imitation of Alexander the Great conquering the known world, was stopped in his tracks by North Korea.
Yes, representatives of Pyongyang's demented leader told a State Department envoy, they are working on a nuclear bomb.
Iraq, Bush's obsession, has been six months away from a nuke for years, and Bush wants to bomb, invade and occupy it. But here's North Korea's Kim Jong Il, who fits perfectly Bush's description of Saddam Hussein as "a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction."
Bush doesn't want to raise a finger against him.
"We seek a peaceful solution," said he.
We do?
How come?
It is true that there is a difference between Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Il. Hussein is power mad; Kim is mad -- certifiably so, which could make him even more dangerous. And his nuclear program -- aided and abetted by our principal ally in the war against terror, Pakistan -- is farther along than Iraq's. Moving into the broken-promises area, North Korea has been no piker: Hussein has broken more U.N. resolutions, but Kim violated the all-important 1994 agreement on nonproliferation.
As for mass murder of their own people, they are twins. The president has been telling us of the crimes of Hussein, the gassing of the Kurds and the cruelties toward his real and official family. Kim has chosen another means of exterminating his citizenry. In the wake of flood and drought, North Korea faced famine, and some think as many as 2 million died. Kim manipulated humanitarian aid programs and starved people he deemed nonessential.
Bush has no comment.
What has been drained off his crusade for sending the bombers over Baghdad is the moral imperative of regime change. If Hussein has to be removed because he is so loathsome, why not Kim? You had to go to the small tent city outside police headquarters in Rockville, where frustrated cops brief press from all over the world about what they don't know, to find a more flummoxed crew than the White House warlord. The most recent shooting was of a 47-year-old woman who had survived cancer; she was felled by a single shot as she and her husband loaded their car with Home Depot purchases. The horrible event was thought to have a redeeming feature -- a harvest of clues and eyewitness accounts. But it all vanished. Chagrined officers and officials said the cream-colored van, the olive-skinned man and the broken taillight were imagined and not seen.
Bush is moving fast these days. The commander in chief spends all his time waging war on Democrats. He should perhaps pause long enough to explain to those in Congress why he withheld the news about North Korea's nuclear program from them for 12 days, making sure that the war resolution was safely passed without any distracting revelations. Democrats who voted for the resolution, particularly those who railed against it while doing so, might find an explanation to mitigate their embarrassment. They were prodded to a roll call by Bush's hard sell about the importance of every minute; they were also being hammered on the right for being "appeasers." Democrat Paul Wellstone, despite a stiff Republican challenge, bucked the tide and voted against the war. He is so far not paying any price. Even pro-war voters have commended him for showing guts.
Voters have long been accustomed to living with a double standard from both parties in dealing with troublesome foreigners. Little Cuba is still caught in a 40-year-old embargo because of its Communist dictator, while humongous China, with its brazen human rights violations, religious persecution and ruthless repression, is a partner.
But as we barrel down the road to war with Iraq, maybe we ought to quiz our unilateralist president about why it is necessary for us to bomb, invade and occupy Iraq while North Korea gets the striped-pants treatment. Is it because North Korea has a million men under arms? Is it because Kim Jong Il never threatened to kill Bush's father, or because he has no oil, or is not a Muslim? Maybe we should ask the advocates who dreamed for 10 years of invading Iraq. Do Richard Perle, Richard Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz believe in equal opportunity for tyrants? Their leader seems to be pointing the other way.
posted on October 20, 2002 09:15:16 PM new
I applauded the timing of the announcement by the North Koreans. Don't think that it was a mere coincidence that they waitied until just after the signing of last week's bill authorizing Bush to use force against Iraq. It was carefully planned to derail Bush's plans for Conquest and it may yet succeed. Still blatant hypocrisy and outright lies and lying to the public by a President hasn't stalled this administration from doing just whatever the hell it is that thy want to and damn the people - all War engines ahead! It will take more than just revealing Bush's blatant hypocrisy on this matter to stop this nonsensical pursuit of Conquest and Glory-seeking on the part of George Bush! It will take another election to oust him for good and hopefully, take the GOP with him as the dregs of society that they are.
posted on October 21, 2002 08:42:46 AM new
Exactly right, Borillar
N. Korea Issue Irks Congress
Key Democrats Kept in Dark On Admission Before Iraq Vote
By Mike Allen and Karen DeYoung Washington Post Staff Writers Saturday, October 19, 2002; Page A01
The White House withheld North Korea's admission about a nuclear weapons program from key Democrats until after Congress had passed its resolution authorizing war with Iraq, prompting complaints on Capitol Hill that the administration has let politics influence its conduct of foreign affairs.
Several senators said through their aides that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld did not mention North Korea's covert nuclear weapons program during a classified briefing held in a secure chamber less than three hours before two senior administration officials revealed the news in a conference call with four reporters.
Senate Majority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) said he learned about the weapons program from newspaper articles the next morning, and Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) said he was told about two hours ahead of the press. At least two Republican senators said they had earlier received individual briefings from Assistant Secretary of State James A. Kelly.
Democrats on Capitol Hill were critical yesterday of the 12-day gap between the admission by North Korea and the administration's disclosure. During that time, Congress passed the Iraq resolution, and President Bush signed it hours before the 7 p.m. disclosure about North Korea. Administration officials said they revealed the information because former Clinton administration officials had leaked the news after learning about it from State Department contacts. Democrats said the episode could further impair the administration's already fragile relations with Congress.
"Senators are concerned and troubled by it," a Democratic leadership aide said. "This cloud of secrecy raises questions about whether there are other pieces to this puzzle they don't know about."
Administration officials said they briefed some Democratic House staff members and offered to brief at least one House Democrat and one Senate Democrat, although those briefings did not occur. "We did this very methodically," a senior administration official said. "What's the first question the Hill is going to ask? 'What does South Korea think? What does Japan think?' That's what we were trying to figure out. There was a lot going on."
Bush remained silent on the North Korea developments yesterday for the second day in a row, although he continued to use speeches along the campaign trail to condemn Iraqi President Saddam Hussein as "a true and real threat." White House officials said the issue was best handled through diplomatic channels and said Bush would seek "a peaceful resolution."
Bush has not let the world turmoil deter him from his campaign schedule leading up to the Nov. 5 elections, which has fueled Democratic suspicions about his motives for trying to keep international attention on Iraq and its alleged ties to al Qaeda. He made stops in four states over the past two days and is scheduled to barnstorm five more next week. Bush also plans to go to McLean on Monday to meet with people who have donated at least $250,000 to the Republican Party.
White House officials said the revelation about North Korea would not change the administration's plan to disarm Iraq and ultimately oust Hussein. "This president is disciplined and focused," a senior administration official said. "The president has made a determination that Iraq is a serious threat that needs to be dealt with immediately. Nothing has changed to alter that determination."
Several Democratic senators said that taken together, the administration's handling of the North Korean admission suggested a single-minded focus on Iraq that could potentially cause problems. "When you put all your eggs in one basket the way they have for these last months, it leaves you exposed in other places," said Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), a member of the Foreign Relations Committee who may run against Bush in 2004.
Kerry said knowing about North Korea's admission probably would not have changed his vote for the Iraq resolution, but he said full disclosure is important to building trust and conducting a fair debate. "As you have briefings, you'll wonder whether there's something else out there," he said.
Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), who has taken issue with Bush's assertion that Iraq poses an urgent threat, was informed by Kelly ahead of Democratic leaders. Hagel said he was briefed for at least 90 minutes early this week. Hagel said he first learned about North Korea's admission during an Oct. 9 conversation with Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage. "The administration was continuing to work with our allies on this -- to button down enough of the gaps they had before they then went up to brief people on Capitol Hill, which I completely understand," Hagel said. Other senior Republicans, including Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott (Miss.), were not briefed.
The CIA briefed selected lawmakers from both parties about nuclear intelligence that Kelly planned to take to North Korean officials. When Kelly confronted the North Koreans with the intelligence, they admitted the activity on Oct. 4.
Bush's decision to address the North Korean crisis through diplomatic means, in consultation with regional allies and friends, has drawn criticism from conservative quarters that believe Pyongyang should be dealt with in the same way as Iraq. In a "Memorandum to Opinion Leaders" distributed Thursday, the Project for the New American Century praised Bush's initial distrust of North Korea and his "instinctive" rejection of President Bill Clinton's engagement policy.
Much of the top civilian leadership at the Defense Department, including Rumsfeld, belonged to the New American Century organization before joining the administration, and signed a 1998 letter to Clinton urging that he abandon his "containment" policy with Iraq and take more aggressive "regime change" action against Saddam Hussein.
"Understandably," the Thursday memo said, "the president [now] wishes to deal with the enormous threat he has identified from Iraq without being distracted by a crisis in North Korea. He should not do so however at the expense of clarity about the threat posed by Pyongyang and the need for the regime to be replaced. In that connection," it said, "statements from administration officials . . . apparently recommitting the administration to the failed policy of never-ending diplomacy with [North Korean leader] Kim Jong Il are of real concern."
Staff writer Glenn Kessler contributed to this report.
posted on October 21, 2002 09:34:53 AM new
Doesn't that make you angry? At the RT here, WE knew about the threat from North Korea 6 months ago. How could they NOT have known? If they did, why were they hiding the fact? NK and Iraq have been trading secrets for years. Do you think there's any chance that Iraq might already have WOMD? Duh!
posted on October 21, 2002 09:42:19 AM new
My god! What a buncha crap! The Korean Admission would have changed everything if it had been publically announced when they received it. If you didn't believe that Bush is LYING to us about Iraq - there's the Smoking Gun!
posted on October 23, 2002 06:05:56 AM new
Borillar,
I guess, being busy and all, you missed my question, so I'll bump this up. I know you wouldn't want to miss the opportunity to reply.
[ edited by Tex1 on Oct 23, 2002 06:08 AM ]
posted on October 23, 2002 08:18:53 AM new
I don't see Iraq or Korea as a threat to America. I see sold-out politicans, special interest groups who promote legislation that hurts Americans, and Christian Fundamentalist influences in our government as the real threats to Ameria. Why do you ask?
posted on October 23, 2002 01:29:54 PM new
Just trying to figure out what the smoking gun is (was), and what the "lie" is (was). It's a little hard to tell from your tortured logic, sometimes.
posted on October 23, 2002 02:41:56 PM new
Hard to believe Bush is passing up the possibility of a twofer against the Axis of Evil, but it seems to be true. Is it the two front war with the increased manpower (re draft) that would require? Or is it the simple fact that North Korea has no oil and a powerful ally that's coming to visit?
posted on October 23, 2002 03:23:05 PM new
>Just trying to figure out what the smoking gun is (was), and what the "lie" is (was). It's a little hard to tell from your tortured logic, sometimes.
>SIGH< As usual, tex, you bring nothing to the discusion, contribute nothing, merely throw out insults at posters.
Try to read the read the initial thread post and then try to contemplate what it might mean (if you can).
posted on October 23, 2002 05:24:35 PM new
What a difference four years makes.........
Why U.N. inspectors left Iraq--then and now
The U.N. orders its weapons inspectors to leave Iraq after the chief inspector reports Baghdad is not fully cooperating with them.
-- Sheila MacVicar, ABC World News This Morning, 12/16/98
To bolster its claim, Iraq let reporters see one laboratory U.N. inspectors once visited before they were kicked out four years ago.
--John McWethy, ABC World News Tonight, 8/12/02
The Iraq story boiled over last night when the chief U.N. weapons inspector, Richard Butler, said that Iraq had not fully cooperated with inspectors and--as they had
promised to do. As a result, the U.N. ordered its inspectors to leave Iraq this morning
--Katie Couric, NBC's Today, 12/16/98/
As Washington debates when and how to attack Iraq, a surprise offer from Baghdad. It is ready to talk about re-admitting U.N. weapons inspectors after kicking
them out four years ago.
--Maurice DuBois, NBC's Saturday Today, 8/3/02
The chief U.N. weapons inspector ordered his monitors to leave Baghdad today after saying that Iraq had once again reneged on its promise to cooperate--a report
that renewed the threat of U.S. and British airstrikes.
--AP, 12/16/98
Information on Iraq's programs has been spotty since Saddam expelled U.N. weapons inspectors in 1998.
--AP, 9/7/02
Immediately after submitting his report on Baghdad's noncompliance, Butler ordered his inspectors to leave Iraq.
--Los Angeles Times, 12/17/98
It is not known whether Iraq has rebuilt clandestine nuclear facilities since U.N. inspectors were forced out in 1998, but the report said the regime lacks nuclear
material for a bomb and the capability to make weapons.
--Los Angeles Times, 9/10/02
The United Nations once again has ordered its weapons inspectors out of Iraq. Today's evacuation follows a new warning from chief weapons inspector Richard
Butler accusing Iraq of once again failing to cooperate with the inspectors. The United States and Britain repeatedly have warned that Iraq's failure to cooperate with
the inspectors could lead to air strikes.
--Bob Edwards, NPR, 12/16/98
If he has secret weapons, he's had four years since he kicked out the inspectors to hide all of them.
--Daniel Schorr, NPR, 8/3/02
This is the second time in a month that UNSCOM has pulled out in the face of a possible U.S.-led attack. But this time there may be no turning back. Weapons
inspectors packed up their personal belongings and loaded up equipment at U.N. headquarters after a predawn evacuation order. In a matter of hours, they were
gone, more than 120 of them headed for a flight to Bahrain.
--Jane Arraf, CNN, 12/16/98
What Mr. Bush is being urged to do by many advisers is focus on the simple fact that Saddam Hussein signed a piece of paper at the end of the Persian Gulf War,
promising that the United Nations could have unfettered weapons inspections in Iraq. It has now been several years since those inspectors were kicked out.
--John King, CNN, 8/18/02
Russian Ambassador Sergei Lavrov criticized Butler for evacuating inspectors from Iraq Wednesday morning without seeking permission from the Security Council.
--USA Today, 12/17/98
Saddam expelled U.N. weapons inspectors in 1998, accusing some of being U.S. spies.
--USA Today, 9/4/02
But the most recent irritant was Mr. Butler's quick withdrawal from Iraq on Wednesday of all his inspectors and those of the International Atomic Energy Agency,
which monitors Iraqi nuclear programs, without Security Council permission. Mr. Butler acted after a telephone call from Peter Burleigh, the American representative
to the United Nations, and a discussion with Secretary General Kofi Annan, who had also spoken to Mr. Burleigh.
--New York Times, 12/18/98
America's goal should be to ensure that Iraq is disarmed of all unconventional weapons.... To thwart this goal, Baghdad expelled United Nations arms inspectors four
years ago.
--New York Times editorial, 8/3/02
Butler ordered his inspectors to evacuate Baghdad, in anticipation of a military attack, on Tuesday night--at a time when most members of the Security Council had
yet to receive his report.
--Washington Post, 12/18/98
Since 1998, when U.N. inspectors were expelled, Iraq has almost certainly been working to build more chemical and biological weapons,
--Washington Post editorial, 8/4/02
Butler abruptly pulled all of his inspectors out of Iraq shortly after handing Annan a report yesterday afternoon on Baghdad's continued failure to cooperate with
UNSCOM, the agency that searches for Iraq's prohibited weapons of mass destruction.
-- Newsday, 12/17/98
The reason Hussein gave was that the U.N. inspectors' work was completed years ago, before he kicked them out in 1998, and they dismantled whatever weapons
they found. That's disingenuous.
posted on October 24, 2002 06:33:02 AM new
Based on the reports listed by krs above, it's clear that the US "free press" is instrumental in spreading deceptive information regarding the inspectors being "kicked out" of Iraq. Is the media a part of the George/Rumsfeld war machine?
posted on October 24, 2002 07:06:31 AM new
I don't know Helen...when one hears the UN inspectors saying shots were being fired above their heads [before they left Iraq]...I tend to believe them.
posted on October 24, 2002 09:08:17 AM new
LOL Yes...learn to be critical of almost everything...learn to be cold and hard to those who hold different opinions...learn to be accepting of anyone who's a democrat, but rude to anyone who's not. So...many things to learn...
posted on October 24, 2002 11:14:26 AM new
>There is no reason to be defensive. You can't help not being able to backup your claims, so nobody is going to think less of you. tex1
No, tex, you don't get it. I don't respond to you because you never contribute any opinions of your own. As long as I've been in the RT, you've never voiced your own opinion about the subject. All you've done is to come in here and take potshots at others who do post their opinions. I call that kind of conduct really chickenshit and you're a coward.
posted on October 24, 2002 11:30:58 AM new
Yup! If asking you to back up your claims is taking potshots, then I have to plead guilty. You might want to answer direct questions. Who knows, you may get a lot of converts to your way of thinking. Then, again, they may be good arguments for the other side of the coin.
posted on October 24, 2002 12:34:55 PM new
Borillar, I probably agree with you on many political points, but you've lost your argument as soon as you resort to ad hominem attacks. It gets tiresome.
posted on October 24, 2002 12:47:38 PM new
Tex is a coward and all that it implies. While Linda and DeSquerril take potshots and hmake the same demands of me from time to time, at least they have the courage to voice an opinion of their own and reveal to the world their own ignorance. No such courage has come from you, tex - ever. When you can go about in here in the Round Table posting your own opinions on these given matters, then you'll get your answers.
I doubt that a yellow-striped coward such as yourself has even a modicum of guts to take that on.
posted on October 24, 2002 12:51:02 PM new
>Borillar, I probably agree with you on many political points, but you've lost your argument as soon as you resort to ad hominem attacks. It gets tiresome.
saabsister, I get tired of your lack of comprehension and your complete inability to discern reality. I put up with it, of course. I get no compensation for it either.
posted on October 24, 2002 01:11:54 PM new
Borillar, I'm not swayed by what you think of my reading comprehension and my grip,or lack thereof, on reality. If I valued your opinion as well thought out and logical, I might be impressed.
posted on October 24, 2002 01:30:28 PM new
Borillar answered Tex1's "question". If Tex needs any other basic information, I suggest that he look it up here
Yes...learn to be critical of almost everything...learn to be cold and hard to those who hold different opinions...learn to be accepting of anyone who's a democrat, but rude to anyone who's not. So...many things to learn... 