Seems to me the Washington Times is in full spin cycle – nothing new. In fact, they also mention the Drudge Report to attack the e-mail.
But Drudge himself has changed his original tune. Notice the latest update in his site:
Lets see…take the word of paper with a pronounced leftist bent, or the Washington Times and Matt Drudge…hmmmm.
This deserves its own thread. I didn’t mean for it to hijack, indeed I didn’t think it’s authenticity was going to be suspect, let alone controversial (we spy on everyone, and everyone knows it, and they spy back). I just was pointing to it as an example of something that could to be cured if such documents were specially edit coded for every recipient: it would then be much easier to know the source of any leak, and the leaks wouldn’t happen anywhere near as often (unless they are intentional, as is often the case in PR offices, usually not intelligence offices).
On the whole Iraq issue, I’ll take international media over the US’s (especially right-wing) anyday – and twice on Sunday.
In case you hadn’t noticed, your country is turning quite Orwellian since the Bush coup.
My apologies to the OP for my part in the hijack
I too, would be interested in following up on this issue if another thread was provided for it.
</end of hijack>
** zigaretten ** aks the question-what makes this newsworthy?
This is what I got fromm the letter,and my question why.if it’s true hasn’t it been shown in/on other outlets (Feb.28)
Still, we have not seen such systematic distortion of intelligence, such systematic manipulation of American opinion, since the war in Vietnam. The September 11 tragedy left us stronger than before, rallying around us a vast international coalition to cooperate for the first time in a systematic way against the threat of terrorism. But rather than take credit for those successes and build on them, this Administration has chosen to make terrorism a domestic political tool, enlisting a scattered and largely defeated Al Qaeda as its bureaucratic ally. We spread disproportionate terror and confusion in the public mind, arbitrarily linking the unrelated problems of terrorism and Iraq. The result, and perhaps the motive, is to justify a vast misallocation of shrinking public wealth to the military and to weaken the safeguards that protect American citizens from the heavy hand of government. September 11 did not do as much damage to the fabric of American society as we seem determined to so to ourselves.
Ths obviously an IMO,but so was Powell’s UN speech mentioning the Al Queda links,tho this we’re supposed to take at face value (if we’re toeing the party line).
I’m more inclined to believe someone who’s been on the frontlines with the man in the street from,according to the brief bio,Morrocco thru the mideast.
When he states we’re (people who believe every dispatch from the popular media) being manipulated into a wrong impression about what people really know or feel in the region to futher a political stance I have to agree with him.
MSNBC regularly carries a full hour or 2 to of the “The war with Iraq”.How about some equal time with the pople who see no ** war ** with Iraq?
Doesn’t sell ads,apparently.Fo evry 10 or so generals I see pontificating on war tactics,I can remember hardly any that could fill me in on the alternative Surely some learned pundits with local expertise in the foreign arenas may be able to make a case for say,the French or German or even Egyptian’s takes on this purported policy.
In today’s instant communication world it’s at least grossly negligent for the national media not to present this side.
Although i admire his courage, I strongly disagreewith his opinion. Eloquence is not a solution.
[quote]
Doesn’t sell ads,apparently.Fo evry 10 or so generals I see pontificating on war tactics,I can remember hardly any that could fill me in on the alternative.
[quote]
Thats the problem many conservatives like me have with the anti-war poisition. I see many wonderful people parading around oppsing war, but they have no real alternative solution. They want everything to clean itself up magically, or somehow believe that inspections will simply start working. And that isn’t flying with me. I have to have a realistic, positive, probable solution.
It might very well be the case that alternatives are few and far between - now.
I still think that had GW could have gone to the UN first, instead of last, with a statement along the lines of, “Hey guys, we’re screwing up here. Hussein isn’t and hasn’t been, following the requirements of the Gulf War ceasefire. Let’s get together and see if we can come up with a solution. If all else fails, maybe we’ll have to even use force.”
It’s possible we would’nt have so many opponents and might even have found a non-war solution.
However, that wasn’t done. The rest of the world was confronted by force as the first and only option that the administration would consider. Only after a considerable time of war talk did GW finally present a case to the rest of the UN, whose orders he claimed to be enforcing.
Or it might very well be that the proposed war is also not a “solution”! Ever since 9/11, those of us who’ve advocated an internationally cooperative and less militaristic approach to pursuit of our foreign policy goals (including the War on Terr’r®) have been challenged to provide “alternate solutions”, as if the cowboy approach favored by this administration was demonstrably effective in achieving the stated goals of the administration. And yet, I’ve rarely even received acknowledgement of my question, and never received an answer, when I’ve challenged hawks to show how invasion of Iraq is in any way more likely than an enforced inspection regime to:[list=a][li]reduce the threat of terrorist acts against America(ns),[]reduce the likelihood that Iraq’s biological or chemical weapons will fall into terrorists’ hands, or[]substantially improve conditions in the short, medium or long term for the Iraqi people currently being oppressed by Saddam.[/list]Not to mention the questions of how a post-Saddam Iraq can be brought to democracy, and how the remaining weapons are going to be found and -hypothetically- destroyed.[/li]
Kiesling was correct in his charges, but did not go quite far enough, IMO. The more I study this situation, the more convinced I become that this war is indeed “all about oil.” Not because the US gets so much oil from Iraq, but because the world gets so much of its oil from the Persian Gulf region. Iraq is just the first heapin’ spoonful of the big ol’ bowl of Hegemeny Pops which control of the Gulf represents. All this talk of enforcement of UN resolutions and of human rights abuses and of international security is window dressing. Look through the seedy blinds and you see a US flag on an oil depot rather than an Iraqi flag on a voting booth.
Preach it, xeno!
xeno: I believe that answers exist, even if you don’t agree with them. I seriously doubt that even if the war were about oil, the Administration wouldn’t have at least thought of justification to trot out if questioned.
As for the posters on this board, well, I’ve been frustrated by that too. I’ve been tempted to think that they don’t HAVE answers, but I like to think that the folks here, even if I don’t agree with them, are more intelligent than THAT. To be fair, though, there have been SOME attempts by pro-war posters on this board to answer your questions (or at least, questions of mine that are similar). I can’t dig up my cites right now, but try looking for GD threads that I’ve started.
Not to say that these are satisfying answers, but I have seen them. Maybe someone should start a thread just for that purpose and hope there are replies…
To say that “answers exist” doesn’t help decide what answer will be the solution. Nor does it prove that war is the only or even the best answer to whatever is perceived to be the “problem.”
One more time, I think GW’s actions might very well have foreclosed any other course but his. And the fact that some private citizen doesn’t have an answer to the present situation that will cause GW to pause and say, “Of course, why didn’t I think of that?”, doesn’t in any way justify the failure of the administration to even consider any other method right from the beginning.
Leaper: Of course, you’re correct. Thanks for the sane rejoinder. There have been answers provided for similar questions, and -no matter how unpersuasive I personally find them- I shouldn’t claim no arguments have been made regarding the efficacy of Bush’s war.
Perhaps I should’ve ranted in a Pit thread. Or maybe I should just go off the boards and soak my head for a while. It won’t cool me off on this topic, but at least it’ll give me something more productive to do than arguing here.
Whaddaya mean more productive? I’m gonna steal that line about flags and voting booths toot damn sweet. That’s productive.
David Simmons: I entirely agree. I was just talking in the context of this board. Lord knows I have doubts…
xeno: Entirely understood… I’ve seriously considered going to the Pit in my more frustrated moments myself. It’s only because of those answers I referred to that I didn’t. Although a Pit thread might not be a bad idea… Or perhaps a GD thread addressing the arguments already given by the other side (perhaps both sides can do that, in interest of equal time)?
elucidator: I dunno… I guess I have a slightly different definition of “productive.” Putting wit in my expressions of disgust is fairly low on my list. 
elucidator - I’m kinda embarassed about that “first spoon in a bowl of Hegemeny Pops” line m’self, but if you prefer to steal the flag metaphor, take it with my blessing. 
Sigh I really have no wish to get into this as a debate. Still, I will make one reply to you, Xeno.
-
Saddam has been proven to support terrorism, and particularly Palestinian terrorism. This war is not, and never has been solely about the US of A. While the Israelis don’t always do the right thing, they are far and away a more righteous society in my eyes, and have been amazingly patient and restrained, in my opinion. Taking out Saddam will be a long-term boon to both Israelis and Palestinians.
-
Saddam has been trying to obtain Nuclear weapons, but thankfully he has yet failed. But if we leave him alone, sooner or later he will find a way to get them, and if not him, his successor may well succeed. We have the sworn testimony of defector scientists from his own NBC (nuclear, biological, and chemical) program.
-
Hi Opal!
-
He has repeatedly displayed a willingness to use those kinds of weapons, and moreover, adopts and aggressive stance - the man wants to conquer the middle east. With Nukes, or perhaps sufficient chem/bios, he could succeed. Its not that they need them to use against other local states, but to threaten outsiders (read - the USA) with.
-
He has allowed terrorist groups - though I think not Al-Quaeda, as they hate each other with a passion - sanctuary on Iraqi soil. Although Al-Quaeda remains the primary threat, there is a longer-term need to eliminate other terror groups.
-
There is also the likelyhood that some people in power (Pres. G. H. W. Bush) despise him personally. Saddam has proven to be capable of mass murder and violence on a scale limited only by his available targets and his comparitive lack of sophistication in killing techniques. Removing him and the Baathists from power will hopefully allow the US to create a modern, free state in the region, where even Kurds can excercise control over their own destiny. The Iraqi people may not have it as bad as, say, the Cambodians under the Kmer Rouge, but its pretty bad there. There is a reason Saddam gets 100% of the vote, and it isn’t that he’s so beloved. This war should be short, to the point, and with little violence on a large scale (strange to think of, but probably true. Then we can get on with turning Iraq into the region’s paradise.
Does this actually represent a large part of the hawk’s justification for GW’s war? Or is it a lame joke?
smiling bandit, thanks for your reply. I wish I could say it cleared up my questions, but of course it didn’t. While you’ve addressed the issue of Iraq’s relevance to the WoT®, you haven’t even attempted to make a case for a military “solution”. Instead, you’ve given me two reasons why a Saddam-free Iraq might remove some existing support structure for terrorism (#'s 1 and 5), an assertion as to a possible ability in the future for Saddam or his successor to develop nuclear weapons (# 2), an assertion that Saddam is likely to use his weapons to threaten the US (# 4), a fantasy wherein the US installs a paradisical free state in Iraq (# 6) and an overused board cliche (# 3).
Unfortunately, you’ve neither supported these assertions and fantasies with any facts (particularly wanting for the conclusions you’ve drawn in #'s 1 and 4), nor provided any argument as to how an invasion of Iraq will more effectively produce the changes you want (including # 6) than will a vigorous inspection & disarmament regime.
Forgive me if I remain unconvinced.